Case ID: ill-app_198/html/0379-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Holdom", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edwin D. Weary, Defendant in Error, v. Winton Motor Car Company, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 21,746.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Automobiles and garages, § 6
      
      —when cross-examination of plaintiff as to prior collision improperly refused in action for damages for injury to automobile. Where, on the question of damages in a suit therefor, on account of the collision of defendant’s automobile with plaintiff’s automobile, defendant sought to elicit by cross-examination of plaintiff that plaintiff, a few minutes before the instant accident, had a collision between his machine and a horse-drawn truck which had caused damage to plaintiff’s machine, held to be error to refuse to permit such cross-examination.
    
      Error tox the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Arthur J. Gray, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed March 27, 1916.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Edwin D. Weary, plaintiff, against the Winton Motor Car Company, defendant, for damages caused to plaintiff’s automobile in a collision with defendant’s automobile. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $238.30, defendant brings error.
    Plaintiff’s contention was that the automobile of defendant struck Ms automobile while he was turning his car around in the middle of the block. On the question of damages, defendant contended that just prior to the instant collision, plaintiff’s car had been in collision with a horse-drawn truck, hut the court would not permit defendant’s counsel to ask questions on cross-examination concerning such former collision.
    
      John A. Bloomingston, for plaintiff in error.
    A. C. Wylie and Ralph Rosen, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Veis. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Automobiles and gabages, § 6 —when refusal of cross-examination of witness on question of damage to automobile erroneous. Where trial court refused to allow questions to be put to witness of plaintiff testifying as to the amount of damage done his automobile by defendant’s automobile in a suit for damages, such questions having reference to the amount of damage caused plaintiff’s car in a prior collision with a horse-drawn truck, and where such witness did not see plaintiff’s car until after both collisions, and his estimate of damages did not take into consideration the former collision, such refusal held to be error.

3. Automobiles and gabages, § 6*—when refusal of cross-examination of loitness for plaintiff as to prior collision erroneous. Where plaintiff in an action for damages for injury to his automobile as a result of a collision with another automobile was allowed to prove by a witness that a police officer had stated to him that plaintiff was without fault in the collision on account of which suit is brought, and where the court refused to allow counsel for defendant to ask this officer whether plaintiff had not admitted to him that his car had a few minutes prior to the collision with defendant’s car been in collision with a horse-drawn truck, and that as a result of such collision his car had been damaged, held that such refusal was error.

4. Automobiles and gabages, § 6*—when evidence inadmissible as being hearsay. Where the son of plaintiff was permitted to testify that a police officer had stated to him that his father was without fault in the collision with defendant’s automobile on account of which suit was brought, such testimony was clearly hearsay.