Case ID: ill-app_205/html/0621-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice McDonald", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William D. Selvage, by Catherine Selvage, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 22,393.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    Street railroads, § 144
      
      —when instruction on exercise of care hy person crossing street car track is erroneous. In an action to recover for personal injuries received through being struck by a street car while crossing a street where there is evidence from which the jury might reasonably have found that plaintiff was negligent in getting into the position in 'which he was injured, it is error to instruct at plaintiff’s request that “plaintiff was only required to use ordinary care. You are further instructed that ordinary care, as defined in these instructions, is that degree of care and caution which a person of the like age, experience and degree of intelligence of the plaintiff, as shown by the evidence, would have exercised under like circumstances and in the situation in which plaintiff was placed, as shown by the evidence.”
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed May 29, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    A'ction by William D. Selvage, by bis next friend, Catherine Selvage, plaintiff, against the Chicago City Railway Company, defendant, to recover for personal injuries caused by being struck by defendant’s street car. From a judgment for plaintiff for $5,000, defendant appeals.
    Busby, Weber & Miller, Franklin B. Hussey and Arthur J. Donovan, for appellant; John R. Guilliams, of counsel.
    A. H. Ranes, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McDonald

delivered the opinion of the court.