{
  "id": 5197677,
  "name": "Pennsylvania Company v. Daniel J. McCaffrey",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pennsylvania Co. v. McCaffrey",
  "decision_date": "1897-02-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "635",
  "last_page": "637",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "68 Ill. App. 635"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "162 Ill. 545",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5511860
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/162/0545-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Ill. App. 307",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4989023
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/33/0307-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Ill. App. 317",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5031486
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/41/0317-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 Ill. App. 423",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5004747
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/35/0423-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 251,
    "char_count": 3270,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.554,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08,
      "percentile": 0.31876665396322335
    },
    "sha256": "72234dab9a00f55bd778216a7820505123f30103252f6ae7f3a218e039cf6065",
    "simhash": "1:6a74a224249d5254",
    "word_count": 566
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:19:54.666299+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Pennsylvania Company v. Daniel J. McCaffrey."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion op the Court.\nThe appellee sued the appellant for injuries by him received as he alighted from a north-bound train of the appellant and was struck by a locomotive going south on an adjacent track. One of the questions on the trial was whether the train from which he alighted had come to a stop before he left it.\nAnother was whether he was negligent in leaving the train on the west side of it, where there were other tracks, when he might have left it on the east side of it, where there were no other tracks. The brief of the appellant concedes that the appellee alighted at Twenty-second street, and the evidence is that while there was a station house which, by the scale of the map, may be about twenty-five by thirty feet in plan, and fifty feet from the track, some three hundred feet north of the place where the appellee alighted, yet the surface of the ground there on both sides of the track was substantially in the same condition.\nIt is quite certain, that at the time there was but little daylight, and that from a south-bound train, a passenger, leaving it at Twenty-second street, would probably alight where the appellee alighted.\nIt is also certain that if the train was not at rest when the appellee alighted, it was very slowly just coming to, or starting from a stop, and therefore the danger to persons leaving the train from running a locomotive by the train, on the next track, was much the same in either case.\nIf the appellee was negligent, his contributory negligence consisted, not in leaving a train in motion, or leaving it on the wrong side\u2014neither of which acts resulted in any injury to him\u2014but in going upon an adjoining track, where, under the circumstances at the time, he had no reason to suspect the approach of any locomotive. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. v. Ward, 35 Ill. App. 423; Pennsylvania Co. v. Keane, 41 Ill. App. 317.\nThe complaint in the brief of the appellant that instructions asked were improperly refused, is answered by the statement that such instructions told the jury what acts or omissions constituted, negligence or the reverse\u2014which the jury and not the court is to determine. Chicago & N. W. Ry. v. Trayes, 33 Ill. App. 307; Wald v. Pittsburg, C., C. & St. L. R. R., 162 Ill. 545.\nThe criticism of the action of the court upon questions of evidence, may be, in some instances, theoretically just, but practically of not the slightest importance.\nThe facts which entitled the appellee to recover are not involved in any doubt.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Geo. Willard, attorney for appellant.",
      "Duitoait & Gilbert, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Pennsylvania Company v. Daniel J. McCaffrey.\n1. Contributory Negligenoe^\u00edVo\u00ed Connected with Acts Complained of.\u2014An act of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff not connected with the act resulting in an injury to him. will not prevent a. recovery.\n2. Instructions\u2014When Properly Refused.\u2014An instruction which tells the jury what acts or omissions constitute negligence or the reverse is properly refused.\nTrespass on the Case, for personal injuries. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Edmund Burke, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 9, 1897.\nGeo. Willard, attorney for appellant.\nDuitoait & Gilbert, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0635-01",
  "first_page_order": 633,
  "last_page_order": 635
}