{
  "id": 5413401,
  "name": "John F. Devine, Administrator, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Devine v. Chicago City Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-02-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,938",
  "first_page": "410",
  "last_page": "412",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 Ill. App. 410"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 226,
    "char_count": 3187,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.551,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.465495758632657e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4852864008673865
    },
    "sha256": "de4ee6c9f1a90e8fa67104a3c834ba0d757fb8b409b84103f83b01262655ed5f",
    "simhash": "1:c95d5a55d40b735c",
    "word_count": 527
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:43.745976+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John F. Devine, Administrator, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr.. Presiding Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n4. Evidence, \u00a7 465 \u2014when positive, testimony is stronger than negative testimony. The negative testimony of witnesses that they heard no gong sounded is unavailing against the clear and positive testimony that the gong was sounded, in an action to recover for defendant\u2019s alleged negligence in the operation of its street car.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr.. Presiding Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John E. Kehoe and Watson J. Ferry, for appellant.",
      "Bussell M. Wing and Bert Wing, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John F. Devine, Administrator, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 21,938.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. M. L. McKinley, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.\nReversed with finding of fact.\nOpinion filed February 9, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by John F. Devine, administrator of the estate of Hilda E. Hillman, deceased, plaintiff, against Chicago City Railway Company, defendant, to recover damages for the death of the deceased who was killed by defendant\u2019s street car. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nThe deceased was struck down and killed in attempting to cross in front of a moving stre\u00e9t car after passing behind another on a parallel track five feet away. The accident occurred at the intersection of three streets. The deceased was familiar with the locality. Immediately after a car started she walked from behind it to the other track and was struck and killed.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Street railroads, \u00a7 111 \u2014when burden of proof is on plaintiff to prove exercise of ordinary care in action for negligent injuries. In an action against a street railroad company to recover for personal injuries due to defendant\u2019s negligence, it is incumbent on the plaintiff to prove the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety and he cannot recover without making such proof irrespective of defendant\u2019s negligence.\n2. Street railroads, \u00a7 98 \u2014when pedestrian passing from behind car over parallel track is guilty of contributory negligence. It is negligence in fact for a pedestrian in passing from behind one street car that necessarily obstructs his vision of one approaching .from an opposite \"direction on an adjacent parallel track to attempt to cross the latter track without first looking to see whether there is a car so approaching, when, in the ordinary course of affairs, one may be there.\n3. Street railroads, \u00a7 133 \u2014when denial of motion for directed verdict in favor of defendant in action for death of pedestrian is erroneous. In an action to recover for the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate by being struck down and killed by defendant\u2019s street car, held that the evidence contained no direct proof that the deceased used ordinary care for her own safety and that the circumstances were not such as to supply it, and that the court erred in denying a motion for a directed verdict for defendant at close of plaintiff\u2019s case.\nJohn E. Kehoe and Watson J. Ferry, for appellant.\nBussell M. Wing and Bert Wing, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0410-01",
  "first_page_order": 434,
  "last_page_order": 436
}