Case ID: ill-app_187/html/0071-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Baume", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Harm, Administrator, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 18,952.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles H. Bowles, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed May 20, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by John Harm, administrator of the estate of Helen Harm, deceased, against Chicago City Railway Company to recover damages for wrongfully causing the death of plaintiff’s intestate, a child six years of age. The case was submitted to the jury upon counts in the declaration which severally alleged that defendant was negligent in the operation and management of a street car, in operating the car át a high rate of speed and in operating it at the place in question without, giving any warning by bell or other wise. Plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment for fifteen hundred dollars. To reverse the judgment, defendant appeals.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Street railroads, § 131
      
      —when evidence sustains recovery for death of child. In an action against a street railway company to recover damages for the wrongful death of a child alleged to have resulted from the negligence of the defendant in operating a car so that it struck the child while it was playing in the street, held that a verdict for plaintiff was sustained by the evidence, it appearing that the car was running at a high rate of speed and that no gong was sounded or any warning given of the approach of the car.
    2. Street railroads, § 116*—when characterization hy witnesses as to rate of speed competent. In an action against a street railway company for wrongful death of a child, testimony of witnesses characterizing the speed of the car as “progressing very rapidly,” as “going a little fast,” as “going kind of swift,” as “going pretty fast” and as “going fast,” held competent.
    James G. Condon and Watson J. Ferry, for appellant; Leonard A. Busby, of counsel.
    William H. Tatge, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.