{
  "id": 5820753,
  "name": "Mary T. Horstman, Appellee, v. Chicago Hallways Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Horstman v. Chicago Hallways Co.",
  "decision_date": "1918-03-25",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,769",
  "first_page": "144",
  "last_page": "145",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 Ill. App. 144"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 213,
    "char_count": 2724,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.546,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.719567370958748e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29647732358141343
    },
    "sha256": "066f787d75b2f7021b1ee55bade69021eb0c012f045914a334a519052cb03b42",
    "simhash": "1:5f777195504d268c",
    "word_count": 451
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:15:15.348169+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mary T. Horstman, Appellee, v. Chicago Hallways Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Evidence, \u00a7 76 \u2014when act or declaration part of res gesta. An act or declaration can \u25a0 only he considered as a part of the res gesta when it illustrates, explains or interprets other parts of the transactions, of which it is itself a part.\n3. Evidence, \u00a7 444*\u2014when physician must base opinion upo\u00f1 objective symptoms. A physician who has treated an injured person, but 3 years later makes an examination for the purpose of qualifying as an expert to testify as to the then condition of the patient, must base his opinion upon objective, not subjective, symptoms.\n4. Evidence, \u00a7 444*\u2014when physician may not testify as to subjective symptoms. A physician who has not treated an injured person and makes an examination for the sole purpose of qualifying as a witness to the person\u2019s injuries may not testify as to subjective symptoms.\n5. Instructions, \u00a7 88*\u2014what is an essential of instruction on preponderance of evidence. An instruction on the preponderance of evidence in an action for personal injuries must have in it the element of the number of witnesses testifying on each side.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Philip Rosenthal and Watson J. Ferry, for appellant; W. W. Gurley and J. R. Guilliams, of counsel.",
      "Delbert A. Clithero and Frank Wentworth Swett, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mary T. Horstman, Appellee, v. Chicago Hallways Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,769.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Carriers, \u00a7 475 .\u2014what evidence is inadmissible as part of res gestee in action for injuries to passenger alighting from street car. In an action by a passenger against a street railroad, to recover damages for personal injuries, a conversation concerning plaintiff\u2019s injuries between herself and a sympathetic woman after the accident and after plaintiff had been put back on the car from which she fell while alighting, and the order of the conductor to the woman to \u201cmove on,\u201d were inadmissible because constituting no part of the res gestee.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Joseph Sabath, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1917.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed March 25, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Mary T. Horstman, plaintiff, against Chicago Railways Company, defendant, to recover for personal injuries sustained as the result of the sudden starting of one of defendant\u2019s cars while plaintiff, a passenger, was in the act of alighting. From a judgment for plaintiff for $3,300, defendant appeals.\nPhilip Rosenthal and Watson J. Ferry, for appellant; W. W. Gurley and J. R. Guilliams, of counsel.\nDelbert A. Clithero and Frank Wentworth Swett, for appellee.\nSee Ulinoie 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": "0144-01",
  "first_page_order": 170,
  "last_page_order": 171
}