Case ID: ill-app_187/html/0028-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Clark", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert Porter by Cora Porter, Defendant in Error, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 19,449.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John J. Rooney, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.
    Reversed.
    Opinion filed May 19, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Robert Porter, a minor, by Cora Porter, his next friend, against the Chicago City Railway Company to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff, a boy ten years of age. Plaintiff alighted from a northbound car at a street intersection and attempted to cross the street by passing behind the rear end of the car and was struck by a southbound car. To reverse a judgment in favor of plaintiff for five hundred dollars, defendant brings error.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Carriers, § 438
      
      —when alighted passenger guilty of contributory negligence in crossing tracks. In an action against a street railway company to recover for personal injuries, where it appeared that plaintiff got off' a car at a street intersection and in passing around the rear end of the car to cross the street was struck by another car going in the opposite direction, held that a judgment for plaintiff could not be sustained, there being no evidence that plaintiff was in the exercise of any degree of care, and it appearing that he attempted to cross the track without looking or attempting to ascertain whether he could do so in safety.
    2. Negligence, § 198*—when contributory negligence is a question of law. In a personal injury case, where the facts are undisputed and but one reasonable inference can be drawn therefrom, the question of contributory negligence, as well as the question of negligence, becomes one of law for the court.
    Warren D. Bartholomew and A. C. Wild, for plaintiff in error; Leonard A. Busby, of counsel.
    Charles E. Carpenter and Harry A. Barnhardt, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See lUinois Notes Digest, Veis XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Clark

delivered the opinion of the court.