{
  "id": 5399371,
  "name": "Oby Dawson, Appellee, v. East St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dawson v. East St. Louis & Suburban Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "234",
  "last_page": "235",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "206 Ill. App. 234"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 173,
    "char_count": 2078,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.549,
    "sha256": "0ead94dc5002d043265912edbd67fb3034f547b40e3e372a61f378ba89bbb890",
    "simhash": "1:cbf6aa57720d76d5",
    "word_count": 338
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:33:48.967362+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Oby Dawson, Appellee, v. East St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Boggs\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Boggs"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Williamson, Burroughs & Ryder, for appellant.",
      "Geers & Geers, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Oby Dawson, Appellee, v. East St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company, Appellant.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Madison county; the Hon. Geobge A. Cbow, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 13, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Oby Dawson, plaintiff, against the Bast St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company, defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff\u2019s team and wagon, being struck by one of defendant\u2019s cars. From a judgment for plaintiff for $100, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Street railroads, \u00a7 133 \u2014what are questions for jury in action for injuries due to collision of team with car. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as the result of plaintiff\u2019s team and wagon colliding with one of defendant\u2019s cars, the evidence being conflicting, held that the questions whether plaintiff was in the exercise of due care for his own safety prior to and at the time of the injury complained of, or whether defendant was guilty of negligence in the operation of its car at the time of such injury, or whether such negligence, if any, was the proximate cause of plaintiff\u2019s injury, were for the jury.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1411*\u2014when judgment on conflicting evidence not disturbed. Where the evidence was conflicting, judgment held not reversible upon the ground that finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence.\n3. Trial, \u00a7 195*\u2014when refusal to direct verdict for defendant is proper. Refusal to direct a verdict for the defendant, held not erroneous where the evidence tended to support the averments of the declaration.\n4. Instructions, \u00a7 151*\u2014when refusal of cumulative proper. It is hot error to refuse to give instructions already covered by other given instructions.\nWilliamson, Burroughs & Ryder, for appellant.\nGeers & Geers, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0234-01",
  "first_page_order": 278,
  "last_page_order": 279
}