Case ID: ill-app_189/html/0113-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Pam", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Clara Hjertaas, Appellee, v. Gage Brothers & Company, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 19,772.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Jesse A. Baldwin, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 8, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Clara Hjertaas against Gage Brothers & Company to recover for personal injuries received by plaintiff by being struck by the end of the shaft of a wagon driven by an employee of defendant. The facts showed that the plaintiff was crossing Wabash avenue by walking east on the north side of Madison street and that at the time she had reached a point within about one or two feet of the curb, defendant’s wagon came from the east on Madison street, turned the corner to go north on Wabash avenue and struck plaintiff. It appeared that a crossing policeman just before the accident signaled with his whistle for the traffic to cross Madison street, and there was evidence tending to show that the wagon was driven swiftly on turning the corner. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff for two thousand dollars, defendant appeals.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Negligence, § 187
      
      —sufficiency of evidence. In an action for personal injuries received by plaintiff by being struck by a shaft of defendant’s wagon when she was crossing a street, held that a verdict for plaintiff was sustained by the evidence.
    2. Negligence, § 188
      
      —sufficiency of proof of due care. The fact that plaintiff was in the exercise of due care need not be proved by direct and positive evidence; it is sufficient if such fact may be fairly inferred from the circumstances in evidence.
    3. Appeal and error, § 1561
      
      —when refusal of requested instructions harmless. Refusal of requested instructions covered by other instructions given, held harmless.
    Defendant urged as ground for reversal that the evidence was insufficient to show that plaintiff was in the exercise of due care, and that the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
    Helmer, Moulton, Whitman & Whitman, for appellant ; Lloyd C. Whitman, of counsel.
    J. A. Arkin and Richard J. Finn, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Pam

delivered the opinion of the court.