Case ID: ill-app_185/html/0203-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Barnes", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frank Semrau, Appellee, v. Calumet & South Chicago Railway Company, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 18,912.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles M. Foell, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed February 17, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Frank Semrau against Calumet & South Chicago Railway Company to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff and damages to his automobile resulting from a collision between one of defendant’s cars and plaintiff’s automobile at a street intersection. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for two thousand five hundred dollars, defendant appeals.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Street railroads, § 131
      
      —when recovery for injuries resulting from collision warranted by the evidence. In. an action against a street railway company to recover for injuries resulting from a collision between one of defendant’s cars and plaintiff’s automobile at a street intersection, a verdict for plaintiff on conflicting evidence as to the speed of the car and of the automobile at and prior to the accident, held warranted by the evidence.
    2. Damages, § 244
      
      —when admission of improper evidence of, not reversible error. In an action against a street railway company to recover for personal injuries and for damages to plaintiff’s automobile resulting from a collision with a street car, erroneously permitting plaintiff, over objection, to prove the difference between the market value of the automobile before and after the accident, held not reversible error where the proof of the personal injuries plaintiff received might alone justify the verdict and judgment, and there was no contention that the damages recovered are excessive.
    3. Instructions, § 49
      
      —when modified instructions as to preponderance of evidence and credibility of witnesses not misleading. An instruction as tendered told the jury that in determining where the preponderance or the greater weight of the evidence lies they were entitled to take into consideration several matters, and ended by saying “and from all these circumstances and others that may occur to you as shown by the evidence, determine the degree of credibility,” etc. The court modified the instruction by striking out the clause “and from others that may occur to you.” Held that the instruction was incorrect, both as tendered and as modified, for the reason that it did not tell the jury to take into consideration all the evidence, but that the giving of the instruction as modified did not mislead the jury in view of other instructions given.
    4. Street railroads, § 148
      
      —when erasures in modified instruction not misleading. An instruction tendered in effect told the jury that proof of failure of defendant street railway company to give warning was not of itself sufficient to entitle plaintiff to recover, and then stated what plaintiff must prove in order to recover on that ground ending with the sentence “and plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that at the time and place of the accident he was in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety.” The court gave the instruction after striking out the last sentence. Held, the fact that the words stricken out remained legible was not misleading as causing the jury to believe due care on part of plaintiff was unnecessary, the jury being otherwise instructed and the instruction not directing a verdict.
    
      Warner H. Robinson and Charles LeRoy Brown, for appellant; Leonard A. Busby, of counsel.
    Royal W. Irwin and Frank W. Koraleski, for appellee.
    
      
      See Blinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.