{
  "id": 2923199,
  "name": "Charles Hanke, Appellee, v. Chicago Railways Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hanke v. Chicago Railways Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-12-03",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,305",
  "first_page": "293",
  "last_page": "294",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 Ill. App. 293"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 237,
    "char_count": 3788,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "sha256": "f1c8ea5efca707aca4b18b07e6d07891bb5159a175b158dfd3ef9d1f5f35d6ea",
    "simhash": "1:ed10589218a7b674",
    "word_count": 639
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:40:32.195438+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles Hanke, Appellee, v. Chicago Railways Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1652 \u2014when erroneous instruction on negligence not cured by correct instruction. In an action to recover for personal injuries where the duty of plaintiff and defendant towards each other is the vital question in the case, error in giving an instruction at plaintiff's request which required defendant to exercise such care as virtually to make it an insurer is not cured by the fact that an instruction was given at defendant\u2019s request which correctly stated the law on the question.\n3. Street railroads, \u00a7 142*\u2014when instruction on right of person crossing track to rely upon motorman avoiding collision is erroneous. In an action to recover for personal injuries by being struck by a street car in crossing the track at a street crossing, an instruction asked by plaintiff that \u201cthe plaintiff as a matter of law had a right to rely upon the duty and ability of the motorman in charge of said street car to so operate and control said street car as to avoid a collision,\u201d is objectionable as being misleading and as taking away from the jury the determination of the fact as to whether the, motorman was in the exercise of ordinary care in controlling his car, or whether he was guilty of a lack of such ordinary care as to bring about the accident.\n4. Instructions, \u00a7 126*\u2014impropriety of abstract instruction. The giving of an instruction stating an abstract proposition of law, while not reversible error, is not to be commended.\n5. Instructions, \u00a7 126*\u2014when abstract instruction is erroneous. An instruction stating an abstract proposition of law which is not applicable to the facts in evidence should not be given.\n6. Street railroads, \u00a7 83*\u2014mutuality of rights and duties of cars and vehicles at crossings. The rights and duties of street cars and vehicles at intersecting crossings are correlative.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ada M. Cartwright and Thomas J. Symmes, for appellant; W. W. Gurley and J. R. Guilliams, of counsel.",
      "William McKinley and L. F. Binkley, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles Hanke, Appellee, v. Chicago Railways Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,305.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Street railroads, \u00a7 142 \u2014when instruction is erroneous as placing too high a degree of care on motorman to avoid collision with wagon. In an action against a street railway company to recover for personal injuries through being struck by a car while driving across defendant\u2019s track, too high a degree of care is imposed by an instruction, given at plaintiff\u2019s request, that if the jury believe from the evidence that the motorman saw \u201cor could have seen by the exercise of ordinary care and caution\u201d that plaintiff, \u201cin the exercise of ordinary care for his safety,\u201d was going to reach the crossing before the car, then it was the motorman\u2019s duty \u201cto so operate and control said street car that he could stop it and avoid a collision,\u201d and that if they find that the motorman did not have such control and the car and the wagon collided by reason thereof and injured plaintiff, they should find defendant guilty.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. John J. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1917.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed December 3, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Charles Hanke, plaintiff, against the Chicago Railways Company, defendant, to recover for personal injuries received through being struck by a car while driving across defendant\u2019s track. From a judgment on the verdict for plaintiff for $2,000 defendant appeals.\nAda M. Cartwright and Thomas J. Symmes, for appellant; W. W. Gurley and J. R. Guilliams, of counsel.\nWilliam McKinley and L. F. Binkley, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. 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": "0293-01",
  "first_page_order": 317,
  "last_page_order": 318
}