{
  "id": 2945861,
  "name": "Sadie Coonan, Appellee, v. James Straka et al., Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Coonan v. Straka",
  "decision_date": "1917-02-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 6,296",
  "first_page": "17",
  "last_page": "18",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 17"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 252,
    "char_count": 3526,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.565,
    "sha256": "9dbfc5e129f0db7e999d1e3a158abca9b1a9106707665601eebed7d95bb87311",
    "simhash": "1:ab700bf6510d44bc",
    "word_count": 559
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:07.214052+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Sadie Coonan, Appellee, v. James Straka et al., Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Negligence, \u00a7 135 \u2014what does not constitute variance between pleading and proof. Where a declaration charged plaintiff was injured on account of a specific act of negligence, and also charged that the act causing the injury was wanton and wilful, held that proof of negligence alone furnished sufficient basis for recovery without evidence also of a wanton or wilful act.\n4. Negligence, \u00a7 214*\u2014when instruction is not misleading. An instruction expressly limited to the negligence charged in the declaration cannot be considered as having misled the jury in believing it referred to anything else.\n5. Instructions, \u00a7 151*\u2014when refusal proper. Refusal of instructions which were merely repetitions of others already given held proper.\n6. Instructions, \u00a7 88*\u2014when on determination of preponderance of evidence is erroneous. An instruction referring to the number of credible \u201cand disinterested\u201d witnesses as a proper element for consideration in determining the preponderance of the evidence, held to be erroneous.\n7. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1535*\u2014when giving of erroneous instruction on preponderance of evidence is harmless error. Error in giving an erroneous instruction referring to the number of credible and \u201cdisinterested\u201d witnesses as a proper element for consideration in determining the preponderance of evidence is cured by the giving of another accurate and correct instruction on the same subject.\n8. Damages, \u00a7 114*\u2014when verdict for personal injuries to woman is not excessive. Where the plaintiff in an action to recover damages for personal injuries had as a result retroversion or retro-displacement of the womb, incurable except by a major operation, held that a verdict for plaintiff for nine hundred dollars was not excessive.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. Meers, for appellants.",
      "Garnsey, Wood & Lennon, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Sadie Coonan, Appellee, v. James Straka et al., Appellants.\nGen. No. 6,296.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Witnesses, \u00a7 253 \u2014what is province of jury in determining credibility of. The jury who see and hear the witnesses are in the best position to properly determine which of the witnesses giving conflicting testimony give the most nearly correct and truthful version of the facts.\n2. Automobiles and garages, \u00a7 3*\u2014when evidence sufficient to show negligence of operator of automobile in violating ordinance. The evidence held to prove defendants\u2019 servants violated a city ordinance requiring automobiles to run on the right-hand side of streets and turn around at an intersection of two streets, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff\u2019s injury, in an action to recover damages for such injury.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Will county; the Hon. Frank L. Hoover, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 10, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Sadie Coonan, plaintiff, against James Strata and Josephine Strata, trading as Joliet Steam Dye House, defendants, to recover damages for personal injuries claimed to have been sustained as a result of being struct and thrown down by defendants\u2019 automobile when she was crossing a public street in the City of Joliet. From a judgment for plaintiff for nine hundred dollars, defendants appeal.\nE. Meers, for appellants.\nGarnsey, Wood & Lennon, 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": "0017-01",
  "first_page_order": 43,
  "last_page_order": 44
}