Case ID: ill-app_209/html/0243-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Matchett", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph Moffett, Appellee, v. Calumet & South Chicago Railway Company, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 22,936. (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Evidence, § 399
      
      —when answer of medical witness invades province of jury. The answer of a medical witness to a hypothetical question and as to his opinion whether or not a connection existed between the supposed accident and plaintiff’s appendicitis several months later, that “this was a traumatic appendicitis due to this accident,” held erroneously admitted over objection, as invading the province of the jury.
    2. Damages, § 250*—when errors cannot be cured by a remittitur. Where a verdict was excessive upon the evidence properly admitted, and evidence was improperly admitted and' also evidence improperly excluded as to a connection between the injury complained of and appendicitis occurring some time later, in an action to recover damages for such injury,- held that the errors in such improper admission and exclusion of evidence could not be cured by a remittitur.
    
      Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthiií, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1916.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed December 21, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Joseph Moffett, plaintiff, against Calumet & South Chicago Railway Company, defendant, to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff while a passenger on defendant’s car. From a judgment for plaintiff for $3,000, defendant appeals.
    John E. Kehoe and Charles Le Roy Brown, for appellant; John R. Guilliams, of counsel.
    Coburn & Bentley, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vois. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.