{
  "id": 5400379,
  "name": "C. Heitmeyer, Appellee, v. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Heitmeyer v. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "224",
  "last_page": "225",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "206 Ill. App. 224"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 197,
    "char_count": 2854,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.608,
    "sha256": "83557adfb6c2f5a32a54de1264026fcc0ab58c78973106ced9d219d74ecafd6f",
    "simhash": "1:60a142af161d973a",
    "word_count": 453
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:33:48.967362+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. Heitmeyer, Appellee, v. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Boggs\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Trial, \u00a7 195 \u2014when refusal to direct verdict for defendant is proper. Where the evidence tended to sustain the averments of the declaration, refusal to direct a verdict for the defendant, held not erroneous.\n2. Railroads, \u00a7 941*\u2014when instruction in action for allowing grass to accumulate on right of way and spreading of fire is erroneous. An instruction, in an action against a railroad company charging negligence in allowing large quantities of dry grass to accumulate on its right of way, that same were ignited by fire from its. engine and such fire spread to and destroyed plaintiff's straw, hay, etc., that if the jury believe from the evidence that the plaintiff sustained damage defendant would be liable for such damage and that they should add thereto plaintiff\u2019s reasonable solicitor\u2019s fees, held erroneous, in omitting to submit the question of defendant\u2019s liability under the pleadings to the jury, and in directing the addition of such fees, as plaintiff would not be entitled to such fees unless he showed defendant had allowed accumulation of combustible material on its right of way, and that the fire complained of was set out on the right of way and by reason thereof spread to plaintiff\u2019s premises.\n3. Trial, \u00a7 199*\u2014when direction of verdict is erroneous. Where the evidence was conflicting upon a question of fact, an instruction directing a verdict is erroneous.\n4. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1628*-\u2014\u25a0when error in instruction not curable. An instruction which was substantially erroneous in directing a verdict where the evidence was conflicting is not curable by other instructions.\n5. Railroads, \u00a7 939*\u2014when contributory negligence in not fighting fire is question for jury. Whether plaintiff, in an action against a railroad company for the negligent firing, and resulting destruction, of plaintiff\u2019s straw, hay, etc., from defendant\u2019s engine, was negligent in not fighting such fire, held a question for the jury.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Boggs"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kramer, Kramer & Campbell and Rose & McCollum, for appellant; Edward Barton, of counsel.",
      "James H. Smith, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. Heitmeyer, Appellee, v. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad Company, Appellant.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Clay county; the Hon. W\u00edluam B. Weight, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed April 13, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by C. Heitmeyer, plaintiff, against the Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad Company, defendant, to recover for the negligent firing, and resulting destruction, of plaintiff\u2019s straw, hay, etc., from defendant\u2019s engine. From a judgment for plaintiff for $75, defendant appeals.\nKramer, Kramer & Campbell and Rose & McCollum, for appellant; Edward Barton, of counsel.\nJames H. Smith, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0224-01",
  "first_page_order": 268,
  "last_page_order": 269
}