{
  "id": 2862580,
  "name": "Martha Schechtman, Appellee, v. Chicago Railways Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Schechtman v. Chicago Railways Co.",
  "decision_date": "1916-02-01",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,004",
  "first_page": "23",
  "last_page": "25",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 Ill. App. 23"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 271,
    "char_count": 3807,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.532,
    "sha256": "4c4a92c590bb1a86d52c532b34981bea4f67ccf6116a7c326b87de9be27829a3",
    "simhash": "1:8176d0c1c42d8082",
    "word_count": 638
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:33.440984+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Martha Schechtman, Appellee, v. Chicago Railways Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McGoorty\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Carriers, \u00a7 464*\u2014when evidence as to physical condition of passenger after accident admissible. In an action by a married woman to recover for injuries sustained while attempting to alight from defendant\u2019s street \"car, a motion to strike testimony tending to prove that plaintiff suffered from retroversion of the uterus is properly denied where the evidence tended to show that the conditions sought to be proved were the result of the accident.\n2. Negligence, \u00a7 191*\u2014when question of fact. The question as to what constitutes negligence in a particular case is one of fact and not of law.\n3. Carriers, \u00a7 484*\u2014when instruction as to duty of carrier towards passengers in starting cars erroneous. In an action to recover for personal injuries sustained while attempting to alight from defendant\u2019s street car, an instruction that it is the duty of a common carrier of passengers to ascertain and know that no passenger is in the act of alighting before putting a car in motion, and that a failure to do so is actionable negligence, held reversible error, such instruction stating as a legal proposition that such conduct is negligence under all circumstances.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McGoorty"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ira C. Wood and Frank L. Kriete, for appellant; W. W. Gurley and J. R. Guilliams, of counsel.",
      "M. A. Zelensky and Lynn & Hallam, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Martha Schechtman, Appellee, v. Chicago Railways Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 21,004.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. William Fenimore Cooper, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed February 1, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Martha Schechtman, plaintiff, against the Chicago Railways Company, defendant, in the Superior Court of Cook county, to recover for personal injuries sustained while attempting to alight from defendant\u2019s street car on which she was a passenger. From a judgment for plaintiff for $2,000, defendant appeals.\nPlaintiff\u2019s physician testified, in effect, that on September 11, 1911, about two hours after the occurrence, he found a large bruise upon her hip; bruises upon her left thigh and back, and, the following day, a slight bloody discharge from the vagina, which continued for about a week, and that he continued to treat her \u201coff and on\u201d for pain in the back, especially on the left side, and for retroversion of the uterus. Three or four weeks before the trial, he found the uterus turned backward. He testified that he had known the plaintiff for six or seven years; that he attended her at the birth of her first child, more than two years before the accident; that six weeks after such birth, he found plaintiff\u2019s uterus to be normal in size, and that \u201cinvolution was practically complete at that time.\u201d He further, testified that at the time of the accident plaintiff was in good health.\nThe plaintiff was three months advanced in pregnancy at the time of the accident and gave birth to a child six months/thereafter.\nA motion to strike out the testimony with reference to retroversion of the uterus, as not connected with the accident, was denied. The court gave the following instruction for plaintiff:\n\u201cThe jury are instructed that the law requires the employees of common carriers to do more than to stop reasonably long enough for passengers to safely alight from its cars. They are bound and required to ascertain and know that no passenger is in the act of alighting from the car before putting it in motion again. If an employee fails in that respect, then such failure is imputed to his employer and is actionable negligence on the part of the employer, provided the passenger was at such time not guilty of contributory negligence. \u2019 \u2019\nIra C. Wood and Frank L. Kriete, for appellant; W. W. Gurley and J. R. Guilliams, of counsel.\nM. A. Zelensky and Lynn & Hallam, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0023-01",
  "first_page_order": 47,
  "last_page_order": 49
}