Case ID: ill-app_199/html/0482-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph Maslo by Stanislaw Maslo, Defendant in Error, v. Franciszka Matyasik, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 22,279.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John A. Ma-honey, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed May 29, 1916.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Joseph Maslo, by Stanislaw Maslo, his next friend, plaintiff, against Franciszka Matyasik, defendant, for damages for personal injuries to the plaintiff, alleged to have resulted from his being struck by a brick thrown by the defendant. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff for four hundred dollars, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.
    The plaintiff, a boy six years of age, was struck on the head by a brick alleged to have been thrown by the defendant. A witness testified positively that he saw the defendant throw the brick striking the child, and there was evidence tending to corroborate his story, including the testimony of one witness as to an admission by the defendant. Defendant testified denying that she threw the missile, and was supported by the testimony of a son, who stated that when other boys were throwing bricks at him he threw the brick and by mistake struck plaintiff.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Assault and battery, § 14
      
      —when evidence sufficient to sustain verdict. In an action for damages for personal injuries caused by a brick alleged to have been thrown at the plaintiff by the defendant, evidence held sufficient to sustain a verdict for the plaintiff.
    2. Witnesses, § 298*—when question touching general reputation ,of witness improper in form. Question, touching the general reputation of a witness, as to "whether he will tell the truth or not,” held improper in form.
    3. Witnesses, § 278*—when questions put to witness for purposes of impeachment improper. Questions tending to develop that a witness had made statements contrary to his testimony on the stand are improper where such witness is not given an opportunity to affirm or deny making of such statements.
    4. Assault and battery, § 22*—when verdict for injuries to child, not excessive. Verdict for four hundred dollars awarded a six-year-old boy for injuries sustained by being struck by a brick thrown by the defendant, held not excessive where the plaintiff suffered a cut on the head one inch in length which required stitches, and a condition of shock with resulting impairment of the nervous system.
    
      The physicians testified as to the infliction of a cut on the head about an inch in length which required stitches. There was other evidence tending to show a condition of shock, with resulting impairment of the child’s nervous system.
    Joseph E. Burees and Maximilian J. St. George, for plaintiff in error.
    No appearance for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.