{
  "id": 5403647,
  "name": "Nellie Carlin, Administratrix, Appellee, v. Chicago Railways Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carlin v. Chicago Railways Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-16",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,860",
  "first_page": "303",
  "last_page": "305",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 303"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 280,
    "char_count": 4868,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.575,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.548627546539126e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2849944147322875
    },
    "sha256": "2d7bf1dadd49700f0aaa2017905e3f3e0795be2fff9a90d1760a295ef2abb150",
    "simhash": "1:0a49e3f2e01fd718",
    "word_count": 843
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Nellie Carlin, Administratrix, Appellee, v. Chicago Railways Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n4. Street railroads, \u00a7 145 -\u2014when instrueiion in action for death of child is erroneous. In an action to recover for the death of a boy six years old through his being struck by a street car of the defendant, the giving of an instruction which was, in effect, a peremptory instruction to find for the plaintiff, and which excluded the element of the use of care bn the part of the parents or next of kin of the deceased, held error.\n5. Street railroads, \u00a7 140*\u2014when instruction in action for death of child is erroneous as not conforming to evidence. In an action to recover for the death of a boy six years old through his being struck by a street car of the defendant, the giving of an instruction containing a supposition that \u201cthe mother was attending to her usual occupation in their home,\u201d held error, in the absence of evidence on that point.\n6. Street railroads, \u00a7 145*\u2014when instruction in action for death of child as to negligence of parents is erroneous. In an action to recover for the death of a boy six years old through his being struck by a street car of the defendant, the giving of an instruction containing a supposition that \"the mother was attending to her usual occupation in their home,\u201d held open to the objection that it stated, as a matter of law, that if the father was not present at the time of the accident and the mother was attending to her usual occupation in her home, the parents were not negligent.\n7. Instructions, \u00a7 63*\u2014when erroneous because of assumption of facts. An instruction which assumes a fact as to which there is no evidence is erroneous.\n8. Instructions, \u00a7 98*\u2014when instruction on interest of witnesses in result is erroneous. In an action to recover for the death of a boy caused by his being struck by a street car, where the motorman was a very important witness and no witness having any interest in the result of the suit gave testimony, and instructions were given on behalf of plaintiff, which referred to the interest or lack of interest in the result of the case of witnesses testifying, held that such instructions were clearly directed at the employees of the defendant, who did testify, with the suggestion that they had an interest in the result of the suit, whereas as a matter of law they did not have such interest, and that the giving of such instructions was prejudicial error.\n9. Appeal and error; \u00a7 1560*\u2014when refusal of instruction is not reversible error. It is not reversible error to refuse an instruction which, although it might have been given as a matter of precaution, was unnecessary under the evidence and pleading.\n10. Street railroads, \u00a7 91 \u2014necessity of parents giving attention to children playing in street. It is not the law that, where families reside upon a street where there are street car tracks, no attention whatever need be given to children playing in the street.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frank L. Kriete, for appellant; W. W. Gurley, J. R. Guilliams and Weymouth Kirkland, of counsel.",
      "A. H. Ranes and M. A. Zelensky, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Nellie Carlin, Administratrix, Appellee, v. Chicago Railways Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 22,860.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Trial, \u00a7 56 \u2014when essential that rulings on evidence be free from error. Where a case is exceedingly close on the facts, it is necessary that the rulings on evidence should be virtually free from error.\n2. Instructions, \u00a7 7*\u2014when correctness of essential. It is necessary that instructions be free from error where a case is exceedingly close on the facts.\n3. Street railroads, \u00a7 116*\u2014when evidence inadmissible as constituting expression of opinion. In an action to recover for the death of a boy through his being struck by a street car of the defendant, where, against objection, a witness was permitted to testify that the motorman, immediately after the accident, stated that \u201che was too nervous to stop the car so quick,\u201d held that such statement was merely an expression of opinion by the motorman as to a past event, and not part of the res gestee, and its introduction constituted prejudicial error.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed April 16, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Nellie Carlin, as administratrix of the estate of Philip Gurivitz, deceased, plaintiff, against the Chicago Railways Company, defendant, to recover for the death of said Philip Gurivitz due to his being struck by one of defendant\u2019s street cars. From a judgment for plaintiff for $2,500, defendant appeals.\nFrank L. Kriete, for appellant; W. W. Gurley, J. R. Guilliams and Weymouth Kirkland, of counsel.\nA. H. Ranes and M. A. Zelensky, 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": "0303-01",
  "first_page_order": 331,
  "last_page_order": 333
}