Case ID: ill-app_183/html/0616-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Thompson", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Minnie Woods, Appellee, v. Village of Madison, Appellant.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Damages, § 179
      
      —when evidence admissible to show extent of personal injuries. In an action by a married woman for personal injuries, testimony of plaintiff to the effect that she used to have eight hoarders and could do their washing and that she is now unable to her washing, etc., held admissible to show the extent of her injury.
    
      Appeal from the Circuit Court of Madison county; the Hon. William E. Hadley, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1913.
    Affirmed on remittitur; otherwise reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed October 9, 1913.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Minnie Woods against the Village of Madison, to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff on account of the negligence of defendant in suffering its sidewalk to be out of repair. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for one thousand five hundred dollars, defendant appeals.
    Appellant claims: Improper evidence was admitted; that the court erred in giving plaintiff’s second instruction, and that the damages are excessive.
    Warnock, Williamson & Burroughs, for appellant.
    M. R. Sullivan, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XTV, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Husband and wife, § 194 —when instruction as to damages for personal injuries sustained by wife not misleading. In an action by a married woman for personal injuries, an instruction which states that the jury in estimating plaintiff’s damages may consider “the effect of such injuries, if any, upon her ability to perform her usual duties,” held not misleading as allowing recovery for household duties such as a wife usually performs for her husband and family.

3. Husband and wife, § 194 —evidence inadmissible in action by wife for personal injuries. In an action by wife for personal injuries, evidence as to her inability to hire her work done held properly excluded.

4. Damages, § 132 —when excessive for injury to wrist. Verdict of one thousand five hundred dollars for injury to wrist not of a permanent character, held excessive to the extent of five hundred dollars, and judgment was affirmed on condition of a remittitur of that amount.