Case ID: ill-app_194/html/0615-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Olaf Nelson, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 20,864.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Enoch: E. Newlin, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.
    Reversed with finding of fact.
    Opinion filed October 5, 1915.
    Rehearing denied October 19, 1915.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Olaf Nelson, plaintiff, ag’ainst the Chicago City Railway Company, defendant, in the Circuit Court of Cook county, to recover for personal injuries due to being struck by an electric street car. From a judgment for plaintiff for $6,500, defendant appeals.
    Franklin B. Hussey and Watson J. Ferry, for appellant; W. W. Gurley and J. R. Guilliams, of counsel.
    Rost & Smith and Ashcraft & Ashcraft, for appellee; Edwin M. Ashcraft and John A. Irrmann, of counsel.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    Street railroads, § 97
      
      —when evidence shows negligence in crossing before car. In an action to recover for personal injuries caused by being struck by a rapidly moving electric street car, a verdict finding plaintiff not guilty of contributory negligence held not justified by the evidence, where plaintiff’s own testimony shows that at the time of the accident he was not in the exercise of due care for his own safety, as it appears that while on the west side of the street, and seeing such car rapidly approaching, he nevertheless started to cross to the east side of the street, and in so doing attempted to pass in front of such car, although he knew he would be struck by the car unless its speed was checked; and such conduct is not rendered less negligent by other testimony tending to show that plaintiff’s companions, who were standing on the east side of the street near a “stop-ball,” had signaled said car to stop thereat, which said car was bound to do on such signal, in consequence of which plaintiff testified that he expected the speed of said car to “slack up.”
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.