{
  "id": 5265653,
  "name": "Chicago & J. U. T. Co. v. John Mullett",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chicago & J. U. T. Co. v. Mullett",
  "decision_date": "1899-10-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "296",
  "last_page": "298",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "85 Ill. App. 296"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 229,
    "char_count": 3045,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.525,
    "sha256": "b96de4af2ed8390e712be51011113244054f5796a08579a61c5587b26c4d5ac8",
    "simhash": "1:393c375267ef4ae8",
    "word_count": 506
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:07:53.008228+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Chicago & J. U. T. Co. v. John Mullett."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Shepard\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe appellee, as plaintiff, recovered a verdict and judgment for $2,500 against appellant for injuries to his person.\nHe was riding in a buggy hitched behind a wagon drawn by a horse upon and along West Fulton street, Chicago.\nAn electric car, belonging to appellant, approached from behind and ran into and overthrew the buggy, thereby causing the injuries complained of.\nAppellant, by express statement in the brief in its behalf, relies wholly upon the two points argued by its counsel, that error was committed by the trial court in refusing to give the peremptory instruction to find the defendant not guilty, asked for in apt time by the plaintiff, and that the verdict is against the law and the evidence.\nThe collision and consequent injuries to plaintiff are not controverted, nor the amount of damages awarded, and no error in respect to other instructions, or in receiving or rejecting evidence, is claimed. The accident happened in the night-time, and it can' not be contended that the car was not moving at a high rate of speed, for the motorman having it in charge testified: \u201cWe were going very near full speed when I struck it.\u201d\nWhether the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care, and whether the defendant was guilty of negligence, are the issues argued by appellant.\nThe theory of the appellant is that the horse and wagon, with the buggy and the appellee behind, came into and upon West Fulton street and the tracks from an intersecting street, suddenly, and so close upon the moving car as to make the collision unavoidable.\nThere was testimony tending to support such theory, but an equal or greater number of witnesses testified to the contrary, and that plaintiff had traversed West Fulton street for a very considerable distance before the point of the accident was reached.\nWhat the truth is in such respect, and whether due care was observed by the plaintiff, and negligence was committed by defendant, was determined by the jury upon the conflicting testimony of numerous witnesses. We have examined all the evidence the abstract of the record contains, and find no sufficient reason for disturbing the verdict. Nothing remains but to \u00e1ffirm the judgment. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Shepard"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Alexander Sullivan, attorney for appellant; Edward J. MoArdle, of counsel.",
      "G-emiiill, Barnhart & Foell, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Chicago & J. U. T. Co. v. John Mullett.\n1. Yebdicts\u2014Conclusive upon Questions of Due Care and Negligence.\u2014The question as to whether due care was observed by one person and negligence was committed by another, are questions of fact, and when determined by the jury upon conflicting testimony, in the absence of error on the part of the court, must be considered as settled.\nAction in Case, for personal injuries. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Joseph E. Gary, Judge, presiding. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff; appeal by defendant. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1898.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 27, 1899.\nAlexander Sullivan, attorney for appellant; Edward J. MoArdle, of counsel.\nG-emiiill, Barnhart & Foell, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0296-01",
  "first_page_order": 306,
  "last_page_order": 308
}