{
  "id": 2928328,
  "name": "John Krichbaum, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company and Chicago Railways Company. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Krichbaum v. Chicago City Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-06-27",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,024",
  "first_page": "44",
  "last_page": "46",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 Ill. App. 44"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 311,
    "char_count": 5181,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.558,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.565170110192638e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2860379118628152
    },
    "sha256": "73517f8b4f45f65cfb82891c73e4998c918b44b8edaf1de1c87223d06f1a2e12",
    "simhash": "1:27911465501ca234",
    "word_count": 869
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:34.192092+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John Krichbaum, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company and Chicago Railways Company. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Goodwin\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n4. Pleading, \u00a7 355 \u2014 what constitutes withdrawal of plea. Where leave is asked and given to withdraw a plea, the withdrawal is thereby effected though the plea continues to be a part of the files in the cause.\n5. Pleading, \u00a7 354* \u2014 when defendant estopped from relying on defense in plea assumed to he v\u00f1thdrawn. A defendant which asks and obtains leave to withdraw a special plea, and proceeds to trial on the assumption that the plea was withdrawn, is estopped from thereafter relying upon that defense.\n6. Damages, \u00a7 207* \u2014 when instruction on manner of determining is not erroneous. In an action to recover for personal injuries, an instruction in the usual form as to the manner of determining the amount of plaintiff\u2019s damages, held not open to objection.\n7. Instructions, \u00a7 20* \u2014 what is proper cautionary instruction. In an action to recover for personal injuries in which numerous instructions, some complicated and involved, had been given for defendant as to the law and facts necessary to be found to entitle plaintiff to recover, it is proper for the court to point out to the jury that the court did not intend to state an opinion as to what the facts were and to remind them that they were judges of the facts.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Goodwin"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Franklin B. Hussey, and Charles LeRoy Brown, for appellant; John B. Guilliams, of counsel.",
      "Daniel L. Madden, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Krichbaum, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company and Chicago Railways Company. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 22,024.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Superior Court o\u00a3 Cook county; the Hon. M. L. McKinley, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 27, 1917.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by John Krichbaum, plaintiff, against the Chicago City Railway Company and Chicago Railways Company, defendants, to recover for personal injuries. On motion of plaintiff the action was discontinued as to the latter defendant prior to the trial. From a judgment for plaintiff for $9,750, defendant Chicago City Railway Company appeals.\nThe following instruction was given at the request of plaintiff:\n\u201cThe court instructs the jury that if you find for the plaintiff you will be required to determine the amount of the plaintiff\u2019s damages. To determine the amount of damages the plaintiff is entitled to recover in this case, if any, the jury have the right to and they should take into consideration all the facts and circumstances touching the plaintiff\u2019s physical injuries, if any, proximately resulting from the accident in question, so far as such injuries are proven by the evidence ; his pain and suffering and disability, if any, resulting from such injuries, and such future pain and suffering and disability, if any, as the jury may believe from the evidence he will sustain by reason of such injuries: his loss of earnings, if any, proximately resulting- from the said injuries, and such sums of money, if any, as he has necessarily expended or become liable for in and about endeavoring to be cured of said physical injuries, if any, but not more than the usual, reasonable and customary price therefor; and the jury may find a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for such sum as in the judgment of the jury under the evidence and instructions of the court in this ease will be a fair compensation for the damages the plaintiff has sustained or will sustain, if any, and the pain and suffering the plaintiff has sustained or will sustain, if any, as the direct and proximate result of the injuries, if any, the plaintiff received in the accident in question so far as such damages are claimed and proven on the trial to be the proximate result of the accident complained of; and the jury are instructed that it is not necessary for any witness to express an opinion as to the amount of such damages.\u201d\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Cabriebs, \u00a7 476 \u2014 when evidence shows negligence of carrier and lack of negligence \"by passenger boarding car. In an action to recover for personal injuries received in boarding a street car, evidence held sufficient to support a finding that defendant was quietly of negligence and that plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence.\n2. Pleading, \u00a7 9* \u2014 when reference to \u201cdefendants\u201d in declaration is immaterial. Where, prior to the trial of an action against two defendants, an order is entered discontinuing as to one of them, it is immaterial that the declaration contains references to the \u201cdefendants,\u201d as such allegations necessarily refer to the remaining defendant.\n3. Pleading, \u00a7 356* \u2014 what is effect of order permitting withdrawal of special plea. The entry, on the motion of a defendant, of an order permitting it to withdraw a special plea constitutes an abandonment of the defense set up in such plea and an admission of the matter denied therein.\nFranklin B. Hussey, and Charles LeRoy Brown, for appellant; John B. Guilliams, of counsel.\nDaniel L. Madden, 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": "0044-01",
  "first_page_order": 70,
  "last_page_order": 72
}