{
  "id": 871216,
  "name": "Joliet Railroad Co. v. Michael Eich",
  "name_abbreviation": "Joliet Railroad v. Eich",
  "decision_date": "1901-07-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "240",
  "last_page": "242",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "96 Ill. App. 240"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "61 Ill. App. 490",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5165953
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/61/0490-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Ill. App. 455",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 257,
    "char_count": 3921,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.548,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.03066433602885728
    },
    "sha256": "1673c1b8147a809aa514b7388da03f2809703d4d3b5bb7c1aa9a6b159046762f",
    "simhash": "1:108bc4b1d203effb",
    "word_count": 717
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:02:30.133382+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joliet Railroad Co. v. Michael Eich."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mb. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is a suit to recover damages for the killing of a horse, and injuries to a cart. The accident happened on a stone bridge crossing the Des Plaines river in the city of Joliet. The horse driven by appellee became frightened and unmanageable, and while in such condition was struck by a car belonging to appellant and killed.\nAppellant urges that a street railway company has the same right with its cars in a street that an individual with a team has, and is only bound to use ordinary care with reference to the latter\u2019s safety; that a street car company is not responsible for injuries resulting from a team being frightened at the sight of cars, unless the company fails to use reasonable care to avoid the injury, and cites in support thereof Kankakee Electric Ry. Co. v. Lade, 56 Ill. App. 455, and Galesburg E. M. & P. Co. v. Manville, 61 Ill. App. 490.\nThe contention of appellant in this regard is well taken, and it may be added thereto that the right of a street car company in respect to its cars is to som.e extent superior to the right of the driver of a team. The car is confined to a fixed track, and consequently the drivers of teams must turn out to let the cars pass.\nThe question in this case is whether the motorman in charge of appellant\u2019s car, was as observant as he ought to have been\u2014whether he might not, had he been watchful, have seen that appellee\u2019s team was frightened and unmanageable, in time to have checked the speed of his car and so have avoided the collision ? As it is, it appears that the motorman did not notice appellee\u2019s team until the car was at most not more than ninety feet away, and that then he either could not stop his car or did not make use of every means in his power in time to avoid a collision. The motorman, had he been watchful, as he should have been, would have perceived appellee\u2019s team when it was at least one, if not two blocks away. The evidence discloses a want of reasonable care on the part of appellant to avoid the collision.\nAppellant has no good reason for complaint as to the instructions. In six different instructions the jury were told the plaintiff could not recover if he was guilty of negligence which contributed to the accident, or failed to use ordinary and reasonable care to avoid the collision. The jury were also told, in the third instruction given at the instance of the defendant, that the burden was on the plaintiff to prove the material allegations of his declaration by a preponderance of the evidence.\nThe damages awarded, $275, are not excessive, and the judgment of the Circuit Courtis affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mb. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. Meeks, attorney for appellant.",
      "John W. D\u2019Akot, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joliet Railroad Co. v. Michael Eich.\n1. Street Railway Companies\u2014Same Right to Use Streets as Teams.\u2014A street railway company has the same right with its cars in a street, that an individual with a team has, and is only bound to use ordinary cave with reference to the latter\u2019s safety. Such company is not responsible for injuries resulting from a team being frightened at the sight of its cars, unless it fails to use reasonable care to avoid the injury.\n3. Same\u2014To Some Extent the Right is Superior to that of Teams.\u2014 The right of a street car company in respect to its cars is to some extent superior to the right of a driver of a team. Its cars are confined to a fixed track, and consequently the drivers of teams must turn out to let them pass.\n3. Same\u2014Duty of the Motorman.\u2014It, is the duty of a motorman in charge of an electric car to be watchful of the track in front of his car while it is in motion and to exercise reasonable care to avoid collisions.\nTrespass on the Case, for injuries to personal property. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will County; the Hon. Robert W. Hilsoher, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the April term, 1901.\nAffirmed.\n.Opinion filed July 12, 1901.\nE. Meeks, attorney for appellant.\nJohn W. D\u2019Akot, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0240-01",
  "first_page_order": 262,
  "last_page_order": 264
}