Case ID: ill-app_183/html/0207-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr.. Justice Clark", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ashland Auto Garage, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago Railways Company, Defendant in Error.
    Gen. No. 18,716.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles A. Williams, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed November 4, 1913.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Ashland Auto Garage, a corporation, against Chicago Railways Company, a corporation, to recover damages sustained by reason of one of plaintiff’s automobiles being struck by one of defendant’s street cars. From a judgment in favor of defendant for costs, plaintiff brings error.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Street railroads, § 95
      
      —when driver of automobile is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. A chauffeur who does not look for a street car within two minutes before attempting to drive his machine across a street car track is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
    2. Negligence, § 204
      
      —when direction of verdict for defendant, proper. A peremptory instruction directing the jury to find the defendant not guilty should be given in an action of tort where there is no evidence tending to establish a cause of action.
    3. Negligence, § 157
      
      —burden of proof. In all cases of negligence it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show that defendant was guilty of negligence and that he, the plaintiff, was not guilty of contributory negligence.
    Joseph E. Paden and Oscar A. Kropf, for plaintiff in error.
    Edward C. Stearns and William H. Symmes, for defendant in error; Frank L. Kriete and John R. Gtuilliams, of counsel.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number*
    
   Mr.. Justice Clark

delivered the opinion of the court.