Case ID: ill-app_186/html/0328-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Dibell", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alma Shurlow, Appellee, v. Lester J. Hoadley, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 5,847.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of La Salle county; the Hon. Edgab Eldbedge, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed April 15, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Alma Shurlow against Lester J. Hoadley to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while riding in a buggy with her husband. The injury was caused by defendant’s automobile striking the hind wheel of the buggy when defendant attempted to pass the buggy from behind. The wheel was ‘ ‘dished” and that corner of the buggy went down to the ground and plaintiff was injured. From a judgment entered on -a verdict for plaintiff for two thousand dollars, defendant appeals.
    McDougall & Chapman, for appellant.
    E. J. Kelly and L. W. Brewer, for appellee.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Automobiles and garages, § 3
      
      —when instruction erroneous. In an action for injuries resulting from collision with an automobile in the nighttime, an instruction allowing plaintiff to recover because of a violation of the statute requiring motor vehicles to carry sufficient lights without submitting the questions whether failure to comply with statute caused or contributed to the injuries or whether defendant operated his automobile in a negligent manner, held erroneous.
    2. Evidence, § 423
      
      —when expert testimony whether injury was due to accident improper. In an action for personal injuries permitting expert witnesses to testify, over objection, in answer to hypothetical questions, that in their opinion a fractured rib and a dislocated kidney were due to the accident, held improper as such questions were to be determined by the jury.
    3. Trial, § 139
      
      —when remarhs of counsel concerning instructions to he offered hy opponent improper. Action of plaintiff’s counsel in his address to the jury seeking to cause the jury to look with suspicion upon the instructions to be given on behalf of defendant, held improper.
    4. Negligence, § 250
      
      —when admission of improper evidence and improper remarhs of counsel prejudicial. In an action by a wife for personal injuries, where counsel for plaintiff, over objection, succeeded in getting before the jury the poverty of plaintiff’s husband, and an appeal was made to the jury in behalf of “her little family of children,” though the latter remark was withdrawn, held that the effect of such proof and of such remark was prejudicial.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Dibell

delivered the opinion of the court.