Case ID: ill-app_185/html/0519-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baker", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph Siebert, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 18,918.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Pato. McWilliams, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1912.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed March 30, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Joseph Siebert against CMcago City Railway Company to recover damages for personal injuries due to the premature starting of defendant’s car as plaintiff was in the act of alighting. From a judgment for plaintiff for one thousand five hundred dollars, defendant appeals.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Carriers, § 476
      
      —sufficiency of evidence to sustain verdict for passenger injured in alighting. Evidence held sufficient to show that plaintiff was thrown from defendant’s car as the result of its being started as he was in the act of alighting, and that in so starting the car the motorman was guilty of negligence and plaintiff was free from contributory negligence.
    2. Carriers, § 452
      
      —sufficiency of declaration to charge premature starting of car. In an action by a passenger for personal injuries, an allegation that while plaintiff was alighting from the car the defendant, in response to the gong sounded as a signal for the car to be started, “hurriedly, quickly and suddenly started said car,” and thereby plaintiff was thrown.from the car, is sufficient to cover the premature starting of the car without a jerk as plaintiff was in the act of alighting.
    3. Appeal and error, § 1542
      
      —when instruction submitting improper element of damage harmless. In an action by a passenger for personal injuries where the declaration contained no averment of mental suffering and no proof thereof was introduced and instruction that plaintiff might recover for “his suffering in mind” is improper, but was held not to have been prejudicial.
    James G. Condon and Watson J. Ferry, for appellant; Leonard A. Busby, of counsel.
    Edward J. Green, for appellee.
    
      
      Sre Illinois Notes Digest, Veis. XI to XV, same topic and Section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Baker

delivered the opinion of the court.