{
  "id": 5410149,
  "name": "Elizabeth Stanton, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stanton v. Chicago City Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-18",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,434",
  "first_page": "385",
  "last_page": "386",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 385"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "188 Ill. App. 502",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5388177
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/188/0502-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 248,
    "char_count": 3283,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.554,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1591023260429469
    },
    "sha256": "0b14a65cbc83ce32a0e1ad44a9e37cf78eda78cf1850ad59a513960e064c0914",
    "simhash": "1:db9c8043763f62b8",
    "word_count": 539
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Elizabeth Stanton, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Taylor\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Cabriebs, \u00a7 484*\u2014when instruction on duty of carrier towards passengers is not erroneous. A general broad instruction as to a carrier\u2019s duty towards passengers within the scope of the words \u201cit does * * * undertakes to exercise the highest \u2022 degree of practicable care to secure the safety of its passengers\u201d and the words \u201cprovided, that such neglect, if any, on the part of the carrier\u201d to exercise such care \u201cand such care, if any, on the part of the passenger\u201d to exercise ordinary care for his own safety \u201care alleged in the declaration,\u201d etc., held, considering all the instructions given, to furnish no basis for the claim the jury might have concluded they were warranted in basing their verdict upon any ground of negligence except that charged in the declaration.\n4. Cabriebs, \u00a7 484 \u2014when instruction on what constitutes ordinary care is not misleading. An instruction that ordinary care as \u2022used in instructions meant such as an ordinarily prudent person situated as plaintiff was before and at the time of injury would exercise for his or her own safety, held not objectionable as misleading, the jury to think that plaintiff, if she undertook voluntarily to step off the car while it was in motion, was ip. the exercise of ordinary care.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Taylor"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Franklin B. Hussey and Charles Le Roy Brown, for appellant; John R. Guilliams, of counsel.",
      "James C. McShane, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Elizabeth Stanton, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 21,434.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and ebrob, \u00a7 1413*\u2014when verdict of jury,not disturbed. Where an action to recover damages for personal injuries had been tried twice, the witnesses produced at each trial were practically the same, both juries found the defendant liable, and such finding was not manifestly against the weight of the evidence, held that setting aside the verdict as to liability of the defendant would not be justified, notwithstanding the evidence might easily be held, on an independent review, to exculpate the defendant. \u2022\n2. Damages, \u00a7 241 \u2014when verdict not disturbed as excessive. A judgment for $6,700 held not excessive, notwithstanding a verdict and judgment on a former trial for $6,500 was held on appeal to have been excessive, the witnesses produced at each trial being practically the same, but the evidence on the second trial as to the extent of the injuries upon which the damages were based being somewhat stronger.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Habry C. Moban, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 18, 1917.\nRehearing denied May 3, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Elizabeth Stanton, plaintiff, against the Chicago City Railway Company, defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained while plaintiff was entering defendant\u2019s street car. From a judgment for plaintiff for $6,700, defendant appeals.\nFor the decision on a former appeal, see Stanton v. Chicago City Ry. Co., 188 Ill. App. 502.\nFranklin B. Hussey and Charles Le Roy Brown, for appellant; John R. Guilliams, of counsel.\nJames C. McShane, 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": "0385-01",
  "first_page_order": 413,
  "last_page_order": 414
}