{
  "id": 2947211,
  "name": "Eugenie J. Crisler, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Crisler v. Chicago City Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-03-28",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,889",
  "first_page": "491",
  "last_page": "492",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 491"
    }
  ],
  "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": 3305,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.579,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.565170110192638e-08,
      "percentile": 0.28628657500881327
    },
    "sha256": "5e1e149964460fdb3151a7b046e5994e87a915321bbc4d6fbbd3cceada7b6bf0",
    "simhash": "1:0b5ca4167abc6218",
    "word_count": 527
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:07.214052+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Eugenie J. Crisler, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice O\u2019Connor\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Carriers, \u00a7 487 \u2014when instmction on liability of street railroad for injuries to passenger alighting from car is erroneous. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained while plaintiff was alighting from defendant\u2019s street car, an instruction that defendant was not an insurer of the safety of its passengers, held to be inapplicable to the evidence and to tend to obscure the issue.\n4. Carriers, \u00a7 482*-\u2014when instruction on amount of proof in action for\u2018 personal injuries is erroneous. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by a passenger while alighting from a street car, an instruction that plaintiff was only required to make out her case by a preponderance of the evidence and that any evidence, circumstantial or positive and direct, which tended to produce belief in the minds of the jury was proper to be considered by them in determining whether the defendant was guilty, held to be of no assistance to the jury in determining whether plaintiff was given sufficient time after the car had stopped to alight therefrom or whether she attempted to alight before it had stopped, which were the only questions involved, and to be confusing.\n5. Instructions, \u00a7 6*\u2014when accuracy essential. Where the right to recovery in a case is doubtful, it is essential that instructions accurately state the law.\u00bb",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice O\u2019Connor"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Warner H. Robinson and Charles Le Rot Brown, for appellant; John R. Guilliams, of counsel,",
      "Robert W. Dunn, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Eugenie J. Crisler, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 21,889.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1639 \u2014when instruction on preponderance of evidence is not reversibly erroneous. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, an instruction as to preponderance of evidence which enumerated various matters to be considered by the jury but omitted any reference to the number of witnesses t\u00e9stifying pro and con, and concluded that from all these circumstances the jury should determine the preponderance of the evidence, held to be -misleading but not reversibly erroneous, having been cured by other instructions.\n2. Negligence, \u00a7 213*\u2014when instruction enumerating facts constituting is misleading. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, an instruction attempting to enumerate facts which, if proven, would constitute negligence as a matter of law, held not to be good practice and to be misleading, as the jury should determine whether the facts constitute negligence.\nAppeal from the Superior Court Of Cook county; the Hon. Theodore Brbntano, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed March 28, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Eugenie J. Crisler, plaintiff, against the Chicago City Railway Company, defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while alighting from defendant\u2019s street car. From a judgment for plaintiff for $2,600, defendant appeals.\nWarner H. Robinson and Charles Le Rot Brown, for appellant; John R. Guilliams, of counsel,\nRobert W. Dunn, 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": "0491-01",
  "first_page_order": 517,
  "last_page_order": 518
}