{
  "id": 5242785,
  "name": "West Chicago Street Railroad Co. v. James H. Whittaker, Adm'r",
  "name_abbreviation": "West Chicago Street Railroad v. Whittaker",
  "decision_date": "1897-10-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "48",
  "last_page": "50",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "72 Ill. App. 48"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 217,
    "char_count": 3328,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.563,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.5046715916883656e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2824071982575046
    },
    "sha256": "2158027d1985d5bb586968fa9896e995a3bec7619dafd8cdc080034189aaa07e",
    "simhash": "1:6fcdf1365b3dd6fe",
    "word_count": 576
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:22:34.845989+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "West Chicago Street Railroad Co. v. James H. Whittaker, Adm\u2019r."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAppellee is administrator of the estate of his deceased son, Eoger C. Whittaker, who was killed by a horse car of appellant July 31, 1893. The declaration charges, among other things, negligence on the part of the appellant in not keeping a proper lookout, and in not stopping the car before collision with the deceased. The deceased is alleged in the declaration to have been eight years old at the time of his death, but no proof of his age was made on the trial. Some of the witnesses, however, alluded to him as a \u201c little boy,\u201d others as a \u201c child; \u201d one of the appellant\u2019s witnesses called him a \u201cboy\u201d another a \u201cchild.\u201d Appellant\u2019s counsel insists that the omission to prove how many years old the deceased was is fatal, both as affecting thq question of care on the part of his parents, and as affecting the question of damages. During the trial of the case no specific objection was made in regard to this omission, nor is there anything in the motion for a new trial calling attention to it, but appellant\u2019s counsel contends that it was sufficiently presented to the trial court by a motion which he made at the close of the evidence to exclude appellee\u2019s evidence from the jury. This proposition would be correct if exact proof of the age of plaintiff\u2019s intestate were essential to a recovery, so that without such proof there could be no recovery. But such is not the law.\nThe evidence clearly tended to prove appellee\u2019s case as averred in the declaration, and the exclusion of the evidence by the trial court would have been error.\nAppellant, in his argument, does not complain of any error in giving or refusing instructions, but relies solely on the proposition that appellee\u2019s evidence did not establish his case as averred in the declaration. Upon consideration of all the evidence, which is conflicting, we are of opinion that the question whether appellant was negligent, as averred in the declaration, was peculiarly a question for the jury, and that the trial court properly overruled the motion for a new trial.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Alexander Sullivan, attorney for appellant; Edward J. McArdle, of counsel.",
      "Case & Hogan, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "West Chicago Street Railroad Co. v. James H. Whittaker, Adm\u2019r.\n1. Negligence\u2014Proof of Exact Age of Deceased Not Necessary in Suit by Administrator Based On.\u2014In a suit by an administrator to recover damages for injuries to his intestate resulting in death, the declaration alleged that the deceased was eight years old at the time of his death. No proof of the age of the deceased was made on the trial, but some of the witnesses alluded to him \u00e1s a \u201c little boy\u201d and others as a \u201c child.\u201d Held, that exact proof of the age of deceased was not essential to a recovery.\n2. Negligence\u2014A Question for the Jury.\u2014This court holds from a consideration of all the evidence, which was conflicting, that the question whether the defendant was negligent, as averred in the declaration, was peculiarly a question for the jury\u2019, that the trial court properly overruled the motion for a new trial, and that the verdict must stand.\nTrespass on the Case, for personal injuries. Appeal from the Superior Court o'f Cook County; the Hon. John Barton Payne, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1897. Affirmed. Opinion filed October 11, 1897.\nAlexander Sullivan, attorney for appellant; Edward J. McArdle, of counsel.\nCase & Hogan, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0048-01",
  "first_page_order": 46,
  "last_page_order": 48
}