{ "id": 5097759, "name": "Edward Anderson v. Alexander O. Bradley et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Anderson v. Bradley", "decision_date": "1894-11-12", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "236", "last_page": "238", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "55 Ill. App. 236" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "110 Ill. 346", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "46 Ill. App. 223", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "90 Ill. 208", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2756135 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/90/0208-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 Ill. 93", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2818500 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/101/0093-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 Ill. 563", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2782078 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/106/0563-01" ] }, { "cite": "105 Ill. 63", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2788500 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/105/0063-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 Ill. 299", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 266, "char_count": 3418, "ocr_confidence": 0.482, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.666970501906556e-08, "percentile": 0.29296901093461436 }, "sha256": "b60613fa03d99be0c59f3cfb1fe599cafb8cc2139b29c158fdbbb3dc5ffbdb43", "simhash": "1:d80bc58a1f5c8ac0", "word_count": 617 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:55:31.699098+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Edward Anderson v. Alexander O. Bradley et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion oe the Court.\nThis is an action for a personal injury sustained by the appellant in the course of his labor for the appellees.\nWe do not care to comment upon the facts. The case must go back before another jury. Whether the evidence will bring the case within the doctrine laid down in C. & A. R. R. v. May, 108 Ill. 299, and followed in many later cases, is a question for a jury.\nThe court erred in directing a verdict for the appellees, ' and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Gary" } ], "attorneys": [ "Appellant\u2019s Brief, Ela, Grover & Graves, Attorneys.", "Appellees\u2019 Brief, Wolseley & Heath, Attorneys." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Edward Anderson v. Alexander O. Bradley et al.\n1. Verdict\u2014For the Defendant by Direction of the Court.\u2014When the evidence tends to prove the issue it is error to take the case from, the jury.\nMemorandum.\u2014Action for personal injuries. In the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. John Barton Payne, Judge, presiding. Verdict for defendants by direction of the court; appeal by plaintiff. Heard in this court at the October term, 1894.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed November 12, 1894.\nStatement of the Case.\nEdward Anderson, the appellant, was crushed by a heavy case of plate glass tipped over upon him by the foreman of appellees. He was directed by the foreman to stand in the position he occupied. It was dangerous, and just before the accident occurred the foreman called all the force away excepting him.\nSuit was brought in the court below to recover for the injuries. At the close of appellant\u2019s testimony the court took the case from the jury and directed a verdict for appellees.\nAppellant\u2019s Brief, Ela, Grover & Graves, Attorneys.\nThe settled rule in this State is, that a court can rightfully withdraw a case from the jury and instruct them to find a verdict for the defendant only when there is no evidence of some or all the material facts constituting plaintiff \u2019s cause of action.\nIn Chicago W. Div. R. Co. v. Mills, 105 Ill. 63, the court say;\n\u201c Where there is evidence tending to prove a cause of action, it is an invasion of the province of the jury to instruct them that the plaintiff can not recover.\u201d\nTo the same effect see Frazer v. Howe, 106 Ill. 563; Penn. Co. v. Conlan, 101 Ill. 93; Hubner v. Feige, 90 Ill. 208.\nAppellees\u2019 Brief, Wolseley & Heath, Attorneys.\nIn support of the ruling of the lower court we need only cite two cases. In L. E. & W. R. R. v. Middleton, 46 Ill. App. 223, the court says :\n\u201c If the facts concerning the employment, duties and associations of those claimed to be fellow-servants are undisputed, then the court should apply the law to the facts and decide the question. Where, however, there is a conflict of testimony as to such facts, it is the province of the jury to settle such conflict, determine the facts, and apply the law as given them by the court.\u201d\nIn Simmons v. Chicago & T. R. R. Co., 110 Ill. 346, the court says:\n\u201c There may be decisions to be found which hold that if there is any evidence, even a scintilla, tending to support the plaintiff\u2019s case, it must be submitted to a jury. But we think the more reasonable rule, which has now come to be established by the better authority, is, that when the evidence given at the trial, with all inferences that the jury could justifiably draw from it, is so insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff that such verdict, if returned, must be set aside, the court is not bound to submit the case to the jury, but may direct a verdict for the defendant.\u201d \u2022" }, "file_name": "0236-01", "first_page_order": 232, "last_page_order": 234 }