{ "id": 5824522, "name": "Lou Pritchard, Appellee, v. Village of Carrier Mills, Illinois, Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Pritchard v. Village of Carrier Mills", "decision_date": "1918-04-05", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "586", "last_page": "588", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "210 Ill. App. 586" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "199 Ill. App. 25", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2973594 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/199/0025-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 221, "char_count": 4318, "ocr_confidence": 0.551, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.17068253786224602 }, "sha256": "848a75160fb02b1a6896adb8f655deb999344e35576544bc2263413e40a8e72f", "simhash": "1:bbcc6232421c665d", "word_count": 741 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:15:15.348169+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Lou Pritchard, Appellee, v. Village of Carrier Mills, Illinois, Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs\ndelivered the opinion of the court,\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and erbob, \u00a7 1725 -\u2014when decision on former appeal is binding. The opinion and judgment of the Appellate Court on one appeal in a cause is binding upon it and the trial court, and the questions there determined cannot be reviewed on subsequent appeals in the cause when the record is the same or substantially so.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1725*\u2014when decision on former appeal is binding on question of'sufficiency of evidence. In an action by a woman pedestrian against a village to recover damages for personal injuries, due to the breaking of a defective plank crossing over a ditch in one of defendant\u2019s streets, evidence held to be substantially the same on the second appeal as on the first appeal so as to render the decision of the court on the first appeal, that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, binding.\n3. Municipal corporations, \u00a7 1104*-\u2014when instruction in action for personal injuries is erroneous as assuming crossing over ditch to be sidewalk. In an action by a woman pedestrian against a village to recover damages for personal injuries, due to the collapse of a plank crossing over a ditch in one of defendant\u2019s streets, an instruction assuming that the plank constituted a sidewalk was erroneous, where the evidence tended to show that it was placed there by a certain person and used by the public without the village as such having anything to do with it, and that a bridge over the same ditch was constructed not only for horses and vehicles but also for pedestrians.\n4. Municipal corporations, \u00a7 1104*\u2014when instruction is erroneous as assuming it to be duty of village board to look after plank crossing. In an action by a woman pedestrian against a village to recover damages for personal injuries, due to the collapse of a plank crossing over a ditch in one of defendant\u2019s streets, an instruction assuming that it was the duty of the village board to look after the crossing was erroneous, where it appeared that the plank was placed there by a \u25a0 third person and it was a disputed question whether the village either directly or indirectly adopted the plank as a crossing.\n5. Municipal corporations, \u00a7 993*\u2014when duty of city to keep sidewalk in repair. Where a city or village undertakes to construct a sidewalk or take control of a sidewalk constructed by others, it then becomes the duty of said city or village to keep said sidewalk in a reasonable state of repair.\n6. Municipal corporations, \u00a7 1107*\u2014when question for jury whether plank crossing over ditch is sidewalk. In an action by a woman pedestrian against a village to recover damages for personal injuries, due to the collapse of a plank crossing over a ditch in one of defendant\u2019s streets, evidence held to present a jury question as to whether the plank, which was placed over the ditch by a third person, was a sidewalk.\n7. Municipal corporations, \u00a7 1098*\u2014when contributory negligence of person crossing over ditch on plank crossing is shown. In an action by a woman pedestrian against a village to recover damages for personal injuries, due to the collapse of a plank crossing over a ditch in one of defendant\u2019s streets, where it appeared that there was a bridge over the ditch in the center of the street and that the plank was narrow and slippery, evidence held sufficient to sustain a finding that plaintiff was guilty' of contributory negligence.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs" } ], "attorneys": [ "Marsh, Stilwell & Finney, for appellant; A. C. Lewis, of counsel.", "George R. Stone, for appellee; A. E. Somers and George W. Pillow, of counsel." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Lou Pritchard, Appellee, v. Village of Carrier Mills, Illinois, Appellant.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Saline county; the Hon. A. W. Lewis, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1917.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed April 5, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Lou Pritchard, plaintiff, against Village of Carrier Mills, Illinois, defendant, to recover for personal injuries due to a defective plank crossing over a ditch. From a judgment for plaintiff for $1,000, defendant appeals.\nFor the decision of the court on a prior appeal, see 199 Ill. App. 25.\nMarsh, Stilwell & Finney, for appellant; A. C. Lewis, of counsel.\nGeorge R. Stone, for appellee; A. E. Somers and George W. Pillow, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Yols. XI to XY, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number." }, "file_name": "0586-01", "first_page_order": 612, "last_page_order": 614 }