{
  "id": 5408860,
  "name": "Barbara Borkowsky, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Borkowsky v. Chicago City Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-05-28",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,935",
  "first_page": "573",
  "last_page": "574",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 573"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 194,
    "char_count": 2816,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.556,
    "sha256": "efa7d8ef4460260d49bed2a21930bd2edf7caf1fc915602a201341aa99d41977",
    "simhash": "1:6fa720b6121ca668",
    "word_count": 462
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Barbara Borkowsky, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Damages, \u00a7 188*\u2014when evidence insufficient to show that impairment of vision was due to accident. In an action for personal injuries alleged to have been received through the starting of defendant\u2019s car as plaintiff was alighting, evidence held insufficient to show that the impairment of vision complained of was due to the accident.\n4. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1474 \u2014lohen admission of conjecture and speculation of expert witness is reversible error. In an action for personal injuries, the admission of conjecture and speculation of a medical witness as to what might produce or cause the condition found by him in plaintiff, is reversible error.\n5. Evidence, \u00a7 410*-\u2014what opinion of medical witness may not be given. In an action for personal injuries, it is error to permit a medical witness to testify that plaintiff would eventually become blind, though how long thereafter he could not state, as such an opinion is merely speculative.\n6. Evidence, \u00a7 368*-\u2014when witness may not testify as to subjective conditions. In an action for personal injuries it is error to permit a witness to testify as to subjective conditions of plaintiff.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Warren D. Bartholomew and Charles Le Roy Brown, for appellant; John R. Guilliams, of counsel.",
      "John W. Leedle, for appellee; Koch, Leedle & Rapp, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Barbara Borkowsky, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 22,935.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Damages, \u00a7 110 \u2014when verdict for personal injuries is excessive. In an action by a passenger for injuries alleged to have been received by the starting of the car, evidence held insufficient to sustain a verdict for $3,500 for bruises on the head and impairment of vision, alleged to be due to the accident.\n2. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 1401*\u2014when verdict intended to compensate for injuries not causally related to accident witl not he sustained. In an action for personal injuries, the court will not, on appeal, permit a verdict to stand which was manifestly intended to compensate for injuries, the causal relation of which to the accident is not sufficiently shown.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John A. Mahoney, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed May 28, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Barbara Borkowsky, plaintiff, against the Chicago City Railway Company, defendant, to recover for a breach of contract to transport her property. From a verdict and judgment of $3,500 for plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nWarren D. Bartholomew and Charles Le Roy Brown, for appellant; John R. Guilliams, of counsel.\nJohn W. Leedle, for appellee; Koch, Leedle & Rapp, of counsel.\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": "0573-01",
  "first_page_order": 601,
  "last_page_order": 602
}