{
  "id": 5818061,
  "name": "Pete Pochco, Appellee, v. Illinois Terminal Railroad Company, impleaded with Missouri and Illinois Bridge & Belt Railway Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pochco v. Illinois Terminal Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1918-04-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "598",
  "last_page": "600",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 Ill. App. 598"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 306,
    "char_count": 4803,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.523,
    "sha256": "d4f91a418eab5eadc0458488aa6bc4cb864b89b81c06d456721f80198acc1207",
    "simhash": "1:227f5067760a0c1c",
    "word_count": 787
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:15:15.348169+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Pete Pochco, Appellee, v. Illinois Terminal Railroad Company, impleaded with Missouri and Illinois Bridge & Belt Railway Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Railroads, \u00a7 740 \u2014when negligence of railroad company in injuring pedestrian at crossing is question for jury. In an action by a pedestrian against a railroad company to recover damages for personal injuries received as the result of being struck by defendant\u2019s train, at a crossing, held, on conflicting evidence as to whether any warning was given and as to the speed of the train, that it was a question for the jury whether defendant was guilty of negligence and whether such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury to plaintiff.\n4. Railroads, \u00a7 754*\u2014when contributory negligence of person approaching crossing is question for jury. It is usually a question for the jury, in view of all the surrounding circumstances, whether the failure to look and listen upon approaching a railroad crossing constitutes contributory negligence.\n5. Railroads, \u00a7 752*\u2014when contributory negligence of person approaching railroad crossing is question for jury. In an action by a pedestrian to recover for personal injuries received as the result of being struck by defendant\u2019s train at a crossing, where it appeared that four railroads, using about twelve tracks, passed over a street crossing; that defendant\u2019s tracks were the third removed from plaintiff as he approached the crossing; that as plaintiff approached the track of the second railroad nearest the first track of defendant he saw a train coming on such track of the second railroad and waited for it to pass; that such train made the air more or less smoky, it being dark at the time, and the evidence tended to prove that defendant\u2019s engine at the time plaintiff stepped on defendant\u2019s first track was backing at the rate of ten or eleven miles per hour without ringing a bell or sounding a whistle, and that plaintiff\u2019s attention was more or less distracted by the train that had passed, it was a question for the jury whether plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.\n6. Instructions, \u00a7 135*-\u2014when error in instruction on damages may not be complained of. A defendant in a negligence case cannot complain of error in an instruction on damages where it tenders no instruction in reference thereto.\n7. Instructions, \u00a7 151*\u2014when refusal not error. It is not error to refuse requested instructions covered by the main charge.\n8. Pleading, \u00a7 449*\u2014what is sufficient as basis for verdict. One good count in a declaration supported by the evidence is sufficient on which to base a verdict.\n9. Damages, \u00a7 128*\u2014when verdict for personal injuries is not excessive. A verdict for $4,300 for the loss of the right foot of plaintiff, held not excessive, it appearing that plaintiff was confined to a hospital for some considerable time, was wholly incapacitated for several months, and his earning capacity seriously diminished.\n10. Appeal and erbob, \u00a7 1712 \u2014when assignments of error deemed abandoned. Assignments of error not argued are deemed to have been abandoned.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "H. S. Baker and A. M. Fitzgerald, for appellant.",
      "John J. Brenholt, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Pete Pochco, Appellee, v. Illinois Terminal Railroad Company, impleaded with Missouri and Illinois Bridge & Belt Railway Company, Appellant.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Negligence, \u00a7 204 \u2014when refusal to direct verdict for defendant is not error. It is not error, in a negligence action, to refuse to direct a verdict for a defendant where the evidence of plaintiff, with the inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom, fairly tends to prove the averments of his declaration.\n2. Municipal corporations, \u00a7 90*\u2014when discriminatory railroad speed ordinance not void in its entirety. A city ordinance relating to the speed at which trains shall be operated through the city, and containing a proviso that a certain railroad company may run its trains in one direction at a greater speed, is not void in its entirety, even if the proviso is void because discriminatory in effect.\nAppeal from the City Court of Alton; the Hon. L. D. Yager, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 5, 1918.\nRehearing denied June 22, 1918.\nOertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Pete Pochco, plaintiff, against the Illinois Terminal Railroad Company, impleaded with the Missouri and Illinois Bridge & Belt Railway Company, defendants, to recover for injuries claimed to have been caused by the negligence of defendants. From a judgment against it for $4,300, defendant Illinois Terminal Railroad Company appeals.\nH. S. Baker and A. M. Fitzgerald, for appellant.\nJohn J. Brenholt, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Diarest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0598-01",
  "first_page_order": 624,
  "last_page_order": 626
}