Case ID: ill-app_205/html/0273-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

C. W. Moyer, Appellee, v. Walden W. Shaw Livery Company, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 22,774.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Appeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Benjamin Ball, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed April 16, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by C. W. Moyer, plaintiff, against the Walden W. Shaw Livery Company, a corporation, defendant, to recover damages for injury to plaintiff’s automobile, caused by a collision with another automobile. From a judgment for plaintiff for $256, defendant appeals.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Automobiles and garages, § 3*—when question of negligence and contributory negligence of drivers of colliding automobiles are for jury. In an action to recover damages for injury to an automobile sustained in a collision between an automobile of the plaintiff and a taxicab of the defendant at a street crossing, where the testimony was widely at variance, held_ that the questions whether the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant’s chauffeur and whether plaintiff’s chauffeur was guilty of contributory negligence were properly left to the jury and that the finding in favor of the plaintiff should not be disturbed. °
    2. Automobiles and garages, § 3*—when defenses that plaintiff was operating car without license and at unlawful speed are unavailable. In an action to recover damages for injury to an automobile in a collision between automobiles owned, by the respective parties, where the defendant charged that the chauffeur driving plaintiff’s car had no license, and also that such car moved across a boulevard at a higher rate of speed than permitted by statute, held that as neither the running of the car without a license nor the operation at a rate of speed in excess of the statutory limit was shown to have had any causal connection with the accident, such defenses were unavailable.
    3. Negligence, § 8*—when violation of statute or ordinance is material. The violation of an ordinance or statute is not ordinarily negligence per se but only one of the elements to be considered, and in any event such violation, to be' material, must be shown to have had a causal connection with the accident.
    4. Witnesses, § 278
      
      —what is proper mode of impeachment. Permitting an impeaching witness to testify from a transcript of -his stenographic notes is a proper mode of impeachment.
    Sabath, Stafford & Sabath, for appellant; Charles B. Stafford, of counsel.
    Max Krauss, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols, XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.