{ "id": 5288139, "name": "Chicago North Shore St. Ry. Co. et al. v. Joseph Hebson", "name_abbreviation": "Chicago North Shore St. Ry. Co. v. Hebson", "decision_date": "1901-01-24", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "98", "last_page": "102", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "93 Ill. App. 98" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "177 Ill. 513", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3153897 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/177/0513-01" ] }, { "cite": "170 Ill. 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3183107 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/170/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 Ill. 440", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2660627 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/83/0440-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 Ill. 398", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5537331 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/174/0398-01" ] }, { "cite": "117 Ill. 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2894615 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/117/0130-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 Ill. 309", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 821820 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/77/0309-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 Ill. 449", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "72 Ill. App. 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5241233 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/72/0081-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 486, "char_count": 9173, "ocr_confidence": 0.546, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0235225705565214e-07, "percentile": 0.5459926428143108 }, "sha256": "b0aa8d86b84cc134715cd0eaadcc283e1a3a52dc392c920afc844348d4d8bec4", "simhash": "1:94a17eb52c940e85", "word_count": 1572 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:02:01.878414+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Chicago North Shore St. Ry. Co. et al. v. Joseph Hebson." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Windes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an action on the case by appellee against appellants to recover damages for a personal injury caused August 24, 1895, to the appellee, by his being struck by one of appellant\u2019s electric cars at the intersection of Main street with Chicago avenue in the city of Evanston, the car going in a southerly direction along Chicago avenue, on which were appellant\u2019s railway tracks. Appellee was a passenger upon another of appellant\u2019s cars which came from the south and had stopped at or near the north crossing of said Main street and Chicago avenue for the purpose of discharging passengers. When the north-bound car had stopped, appellee, with other passengers, alighted therefrom, and he turned to the south, passing directly behind the car he left, went in a westerly direction across the railway tracks, and just as he stepped upon the easterly rail of the south-bound track he was struck by the front car (going in a southerly direction), which was attached to a trailer, knocked down and quite seriously injured.\nThere have been two trials of the case, the first resulting in a verdict of $5,000 for appellee, which was se.t aside and a new trial awarded, and the second in a verdict for appellee of $2,500, and a judgment thereon, from which this appeal is taken.\nThe evidence as to the circumstances attending the accident consists of the testimony of a large number of witnesses, very many of whom were present and witnessed the accident. It seems unnecessary to state in detail this evidence, which we have examined and find to be conflicting and that it is sufficient for the purposes of this decision to state the result merely of our conclusions therefrom, viz., that the whole evidence considered, a close question of fact is presented as to whether or not appellee was in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety; also a like question of fact as to whether appellant was guilty of the negligence charged in the declaration. If either of these questions, and particularly the former, had been decided by the jury against appellee, we could not say that such finding would be clearly and manifestly against the evidence. That being true, upon the record presented, the law is that the jury should have been accurately instructed. Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Canevin, 72 Ill. App. 81, and cases there cited.\nThe appellee asked no instructions. Twelve instructions on behalf of appellant were given and three refused. The jury answered in reply to special interrogatories submitted by appellant, in substance, that it was guilty of negligence contributing to the injury, that the appellee used due care for his own safety, that appellant\u2019s motorman was sounding his gong as he approached the Main street crossing and before he saw the plaintiff, and that the car which struck the plaintiff was running at an unsafe speed.\nThe trial court, of its own motion, gave to the jury the following instruction, viz.:\n\u201c If in discussing questions of law with counsel the court employed any language which might indicate his opinion as to facts, it is your solemn duty to ignore it, as the court has not expressed and does not express any opinion as to the facts. What the facts are is peculiarly a question for the jury. It is the duty of the court to declare the law and of the jury to determine the facts according to their own best judgment, regardless of any consideration other than that of doing even-handed justice between the parties to this suit.\u201d\nComplaint is made by appellant as to the ruling of the court in refusing its three instructions above referred to, but we think there was no reversible error in that regard. VV e think the first was misleading and not applicable to the facts of this case, the duty of appellant under the facts here presented being different from its duty to persons using the street generally, whereas the instruction makes its duty to appellee the same as to persons generally using the street. The second instruction is covered by others given, and the third was improper as omitting the element of appellee\u2019s want of care contributing to the injury.\nThe instruction above quoted, given on the court\u2019s own motion, is, in our opinion, erroneous in that it leaves the jury to determine the facts of the case \u201caccording to their own best judgment, regardless of any consideration other than that of doing even-handed justice between the parties.\u201d The instruction makes no reference whatever to the evidence, leaves the jury at liberty to determine the facts from any source other than the evidence, and the jury might well have considered that they had a right to be guided by this instruction, conflicting, as it does, with the instruction on behalf of appellant which told them in effect that they should be guided in arriving at their verdict by a consideration of the evidence, and that they were free to decide the facts upon matters relating to the case within their own personal knowledge or which they had learned from what they had heard outside the evidence.\nIt is argued, on behalf of appellee, that five instructions, given at the instance of appellant, supplied the omission in the one in question, and particularly instruction JSTo. 2, which tells the jury it is their duty to \u201c consider the whole of the evidence and to render a verdict in accordance with the weight of all the evidence in the cas\u00e9.\u201d We do not, however, consider the argument sound, as no one can tell but that the jury followed the court\u2019s instruction, which allowed them as wide a field of conjecture and speculation as it was possible for words to give them, provided only the jury should be of opinion that they were doing by their verdict even-handed justice. Common experience teaches that the ordinary citizen, when left free, as was this jury, to determine the rights of parties, regardless of every other consideration than to do even-handed justice between them, will not be very critical as to their sources of information, which form the basis of their conclusions. For these reasons we think the court\u2019s instruction was erroneous, and our conclusions are supported by the following authorities : Ewing v. Runkle, 20 Ill. 449-64; Ry. Co. v. Ingraham, 77 Ill. 309-12; Horne v. Walton, 117 Ill. 130-5; Ry. Co. v. Jenkins, 174 Ill. 398-409; City of Freeport, v. Isbell, 83 Ill. 440-3; Gorrell v. Payson, 170 Ill. 213-19; American S. Co. v. R. R. Co. 177 Ill. 513-23.\nIn the last case cited the court say :\n\u201c A correct instruction does not necessarily cure the error in another instruction, unless as a series they state the law correctly.\u201d\nIn the Cobb case, supra, the court, in speaking of conflicting instructions, say it left the jury \u201c free to adopt the law as stated in either charge, as their whims or caprices might suggest, \"or, what is still worse, as their prejudices might influence them,\u201d and held that it is very objectionable to give conflicting instructions. It is unnecessary to quote from the first four cases cited, except the following, which may be said to be the substance of the principle controlling them all, to wit:\n\u201cJurors should be permitted to believe nothing, except that belief be occasioned by the evidence, and their minds should always be directed to that, and to that only, as the ground of their belief.\u201d\nFor the error in giving this instruction the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Windes" } ], "attorneys": [ "Graham H. Harris, attorney for appellants; Johh A. Rose, of counsel.", "Ela, Grover & Graves, attorneys for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Chicago North Shore St. Ry. Co. et al. v. Joseph Hebson.\n1. Instructions\u2014As to Expressions of the Court Indicating His Opinion as to the Facts. \u2014An instruction given bv the court upon its own motion stating that \u201c if in discussing questions of law with counsel the court has employed any language which may have indicated his opinion as to facts, it is your solemn duty to ignore it, as the court has not and does not express any opinion as to the facts. What the facts are, is peculiarly a question for the jury. It is the duty of the court to declare the law and of the jury to determine the facts according to their best judgment, regardless of any consideration other than that of doing even-handed justice between the parties to the suit,\u201d is erroneous in that it leaves them to determine the facts of the case according to their own best judgment, regardless of any consideration other than that of doing even-handed justice between the parties.\n2. Same\u2014Errors in, Not Always Corrected by Others.\u2014A correct instruction does not necessarily cure an error in another instruction, unless as a series the instructions state the law correctly.\n3. Jurors\u2014Should Be Permitted to Believe Nothing Except, etc.\u2014 Jurors should be permitted to believe nothing except their belief is occasioned by the evidence, and their minds should always be directed to that and to that only, as the ground of such belief.\nTrespass on the Case, for personal injuries. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. John Gibbons, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1900.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed January 24, 1901.\nGraham H. Harris, attorney for appellants; Johh A. Rose, of counsel.\nEla, Grover & Graves, attorneys for appellee." }, "file_name": "0098-01", "first_page_order": 122, "last_page_order": 126 }