Case ID: ill-app_208/html/0338-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert Schultz, by Sylvester Schultz, Appellee, v. Aurora, Plainfield & Joliet Railway Company, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 6,366.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Street railroads, § 69
      
      —when evidence sustains inference of negligence of motorman in failing to promptly stop car which strikes child. Evidence held to sustain the inference, in an action to recover damages for personal injuries to a child 2 years old, due to being struck by defendant’s street car, that the motorman in his management of the car was not.as prompt in his efforts to stop the car to prevent injuring the child as he could and should have been in the exercise oí reasonable care for the child’s safety.
    
      Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will county; the Hon. Frank L. Hooper, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed April 19, 1917.
    Rehearing denied July 31, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Robert Schultz, by Sylvester Schultz, his father and next friend, plaintiff, against Aurora, Plainfield & Joliet Railway Company, defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from being struck by defendant’s street car. From a judgment for plaintiff for $2,500, on remittitur, defendant appeals.
    Snapp, Heise & Snapp, for appellant; Winston, Payne, Strawn & Shaw, of counsel.
    Edward R. Nadelhoffer, for appellee; John J. Wellnitz, of counsel.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols, XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic ana section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Street railroads, § 69 —what constitutes insufficient warning to child of danger from, car. Ringing of a street car gong and yelling by the motorman serve no useful purpose as warning to a 2-year-old child, as such child would in the natural order of things be wholly without judgment or knowledge or appreciation of the purpose of such warning or understanding of the significance of such ringing and yelling, or realization of the effect of the speed of the car or the dangers that might result therefrom.

3. Damages, § 115*—when verdict for personal injuries not excessive. Judgment for $2,500 held not excessive for injuries to a 2-year-old child necessitating constant attention of a physician for 3 months, with daily dressing and skin grafting, great pain for a long time, and a permanent scar tissue covering the wound, and inability to walk for 4 or 5 months.