{
  "id": 5407036,
  "name": "Ignacy Kubiatowski, Appellee, v. Henry Pratt Boiler & Machine Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kubiatowski v. Henry Pratt Boiler & Machine Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-05-21",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,876",
  "first_page": "560",
  "last_page": "561",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 560"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 189,
    "char_count": 2905,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.554,
    "sha256": "ca511f54ca5ea0b97fede8d30705db279c8898c19098983c35a0f0e287f92bb1",
    "simhash": "1:e3f4e125101cb264",
    "word_count": 476
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ignacy Kubiatowski, Appellee, v. Henry Pratt Boiler & Machine Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n4. Master and servant, \u00a7 751 \u2014when contributory negligence of servant is question for jury. In an action by a servant to recover for personal injuries, the question of contributory negligence held to be for the jury.\n5. Master and servant, \u00a7 701*\u2014when evidence sufficient to show that contributory negligence of plaintiff is not\u25a0 proximate cause of injury. In an action by a servant for personal injuries, evidence examined and held to support a finding that the plaintiffs negligence was not the proximate cause of the injury.\n6. Master and servant, \u00a7 683*\u2014lohen evidence sufficient to show negligence. In an action by a servant for personal injuries, evidence examined and held to be sufficient to support a finding that defendant was guilty of negligence.\n7. Evidence, \u00a7 148*\u2014when exhibition of injured member is not error. In an action for personal injuries, the exhibition of the injured member to the jury held not a ground for reversal.\n8. Damages, \u00a7 241*\u2014when verdict for personal injuries not excessive. Verdict of $8,000 from which a remittitur of $3,000 was made, in an action for personal injuries, held not so excessive as to show passion or prejudice.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. G. Shockey and C. W. Greenfield, for appellant.",
      "S. P. Douthart and Fred C. Smith, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ignacy Kubiatowski, Appellee, v. Henry Pratt Boiler & Machine Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 22,876.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1447 \u2014when elimination of counts from declaration is not reversible error. A judgment will not be reversed because the trial court eliminated from the declaration counts which served no useful purpose.\n2. Damages, \u00a7 78*\u2014when remittitur may not be complained of. One who voluntarily enters a remittitur cannot complain thereof on appeal.\n3. Master and servant, \u00a7 682*\u2014when evidence sufficient to show relation of vice principal. In an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant\u2019s vice principal, evidence examined and held to warrant a finding that the relation was that of vice principal and not that of fellow-servant.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Jambs S. Baume, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 21, 1917.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Ignacy Kubiatowski, plaintiff, against Henry Pratt Boiler & Machine Company, defendant, to recover for personal injuries. From a judgment of $5,000 for plaintiff entered upon a verdict of the jury after a remittitur from such verdict of $3,000, defendant appeals.\nW. G. Shockey and C. W. Greenfield, for appellant.\nS. P. Douthart and Fred C. Smith, 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": "0560-01",
  "first_page_order": 588,
  "last_page_order": 589
}