{
  "id": 5412653,
  "name": "Mary Kittier, Administratrix, Appellee, v. Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kittier v. Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1917-02-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,803",
  "first_page": "439",
  "last_page": "440",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 Ill. App. 439"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 266,
    "char_count": 3859,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.545,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.3531714201959187e-07,
      "percentile": 0.793457263338519
    },
    "sha256": "58112fe8c88b9b75010200e9159dc2cbf4a0b79feeef487addace520e0fe4dd0",
    "simhash": "1:dd3d16b31428f153",
    "word_count": 623
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:43.745976+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mary Kittier, Administratrix, Appellee, v. Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice MgGoorty\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Railroads, \u00a7 738 \u2014when evidence is sufficient to sustain finding that street car motorman is not guilty of contributory negligence. In an action to recover damages because of the death of a street car motorman who was killed after he had started his car forward across an intersecting track upon a signal from his conductor and after the railroad gates were raised, evidence held sufficient to warrant the finding of the jury that the deceased was not contributorily negligent.\n3. Negligence, \u00a7 74 \u2014when no duty exists to anticipate. Anticipation of negligence in another is not a duty which the law imposes.\n4. Railroads, \u00a7 625 \u2014what constitutes implied invitation by gateman for street car motorman to cross tracks. When a railroad gateman raises his gates it is an implied invitation from him to a waiting motorman on a street car on an intersecting track to proceed to cross the railroad tracks.\n5. Workmen's Compensation Act, \u00a7 12 \u2014when refusal of instruction as to unavailability of defenses of assumed risk, etc. is not reversible error. In an action against three defendants to recover damages for alleged wrongful killing, held not reversible error to refuse an instruction requested by one defendant that the defenses of assumed risk, fellow-servant and contributory negligence were not available to a codefendant, the employer, found not guilty, because it had elected not to come under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, where there was nothing in the record intimating that such defenses were not available as to such codefendant who alone was found guilty.\n6. Judgment, \u00a7 217 \u2014when refusal of motion in arrest of judgment is not error. The mere fact that the declaration in an action to recover damages because of death contains in each count two separate causes of action, one against one defendant under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act and one against another defendant under the Death by Wrongful Act Statute, does not make the refusal of motion in arrest of a judgment against the latter defendant alone erroneous.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice MgGoorty"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Worth E. Caylor, for appellant.",
      "James C. McShane, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mary Kittier, Administratrix, Appellee, v. Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 21,803.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Negligence, \u00a7 48 \u2014when is proximate cause of injury. Negligence may be the proximate cause of an injury of which it is not the sole cause, and if one party\u2019s negligence concurred with some other event, other than the fault of the injured party, to produce the injury, so that it clearly appears that but for such negligence the injury would not have happened, and both circumstances are closely connected with the injury in the order of events, such party is responsible, even though his negligent act was not the nearest cause in order of time.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Marcus A. Kavanagh, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 9, 1917.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Mary Kittier, as administratrix of the estate of Charles P. Kittier, deceased, plaintiff, against Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company of Indiana and Chicago City Railway Company, defendants, to recover damages for alleged wrongful killing of the deceased. From a verdict and judgment against the Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad Company and assessing damages of plaintiff at $10,000, and finding the other defendants not guilty, said company appeals.\nWorth E. Caylor, for appellant.\nJames C. McShane, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vola. 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": "0439-01",
  "first_page_order": 463,
  "last_page_order": 464
}