{
  "id": 1673307,
  "name": "John H. Bourke v. Anglo-American Provision Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bourke v. Anglo-American Provision Co.",
  "decision_date": "1900-07-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "225",
  "last_page": "227",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "90 Ill. App. 225"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "17 Ill. App. 167",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        867315
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/17/0167-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 253,
    "char_count": 3510,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.533,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.201299987952928e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5937328778627634
    },
    "sha256": "06860bceb9cc7890f9f53490ddbd823ab4de845f81a3957ac33272bbd074f792",
    "simhash": "1:cd8202ad5fc322e0",
    "word_count": 606
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:41:07.083929+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John H. Bourke v. Anglo-American Provision Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Horton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis suit was commenced by appellant to recover damages from appellee for personal injury. There was a verdict and judgment in the court below for $200. Counsel for appellant frankly states in his printed argument, that \u201c the only ground relied upon in this appeal is that the damages were inadequate.\u201d\n\u201cIt is within the province of an Appellate Court to reverse and set aside a verdict for insufficiency as well as for excessiveness of damages.\u201d (Paul v. Leyenberger, 17 Ill. App. 167.) That being the law, the question is, is the case at bar one in which the \u201cverdict\u201d should be set aside?\nAppellant, while in the employ of appellee, was caught by a set screw upon a rapidly revolving shaft and whirled around and injured. Counsel says, \u201cThe miracle in this case is that he was not torn and crushed into a hundred fragments.\u201d\nThat is quite probably correct, but the fact is he was not reduced to fragments and the appellee is entitled to the favorable results of such \u201cmiracle\u201d equally with the appellant.\nIt appears that appellant\u2019s clothing was torn from his person, and that he was bruised \u201c from head to foot,\u201d but no bone was fractured. His physician testified that \u201c there was no visible effect of the injuries outside of a scar and \u201c scalp 'wound.\u201d He was able to return to his work in about a month. He lost twenty-seven or twenty-eight days\u2019 service for which he was receiving $2.16 per day. His physician, when asked the amount of his bill, said, \u201cI do not know,\u201d but later said that his best recollection was about $100. There is no testimony as to any other financial loss or damage except it be his clothing, and there is no testimony as to the value of that.\nIt has been frequently held that a reviewing court will not interfere with the verdict of a jury in personal injury cases simply because the court might have arrived at a different conclusion. In the case at bar, there is nothing tending to show that the jury was influenced in arriving at the verdict by passion or prejudice or fraud. Indeed such a thing is not suggested by counsel for appellant. The only contention is:\n\u201c The verdict is altogether inadequate and in no way any possible kind of recompense for these injuries, and could only have been arrived at by the jury by a quotient verdict, or without any consideration whatever of the gravity of the injuries.\u201d\nThere is nothing in this record upon which to base that contention except the claim that the verdict is too small.\nWe see nothing which would warrant the court in interfering with the verdict of the jury.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Horton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Theodore G. Case, attorney for appellant.",
      "O. W. Dynes, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John H. Bourke v. Anglo-American Provision Company.\n1. Appellate Court Practice\u2014Power to Set Aside Verdicts for Insufficient or Excessive Damages.-\u2014It is within the province of an Appellate Court to set aside a verdict for insufficiency as well as for ex-cessiveness of damages.\n2. Same\u2014Interference with Verdicts in Personal Injury Oases.\u2014It has been frequently held that a reviewing court will not interfere with the verdict of a jury in personal injury cases simply because the court might have arrived at a different conclusion.\nTrespass on the Case, for personal injuries. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Elbridge Hanecy, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1899.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed July 10, 1900.\nTheodore G. Case, attorney for appellant.\nO. W. Dynes, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0225-01",
  "first_page_order": 245,
  "last_page_order": 247
}