Case ID: ill-app_62/html/0443-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Waterman", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

West Chicago Street Railroad Company v. Joseph Walz.
    1. Ordinary Care—Question of Fact.—As to whether the plaintiff, at the time of the accident in question, was in the exercise of ordinary care, is a question of fact.
    Trespass on the Case, for personal injuries. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. George F. Blanks, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed January 22, 1896.
    Statement oe the Case.
    This is an action by Joseph Walz to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of the West Chicago Street Railroad Company.
    The plaintiff claims that on the morning of October 9, 1891, he attempted to get on one of the defendant’s east bound 18th street cars at Paulina street, but through the carelessness and negligence of the defendant’s servants, the car was started suddenly while the plaintiff was, with due care and diligence, attempting to get on, thereby throwing him to the ground in such a way that the car passed over his left hand.
    
      Iiis middle finger was cut off at the second joint, and the ends of the first'and third fingers were crushed.
    At the trial the jury returned' a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for one thousand dollars, and judgment was entered thereon.
    The defendant appeals.
    Egbert Jamieson and John A. Rose, attorneys for appellant.
    Goldier & Rodgers, attorneys for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered 'the opinion of the Court.

The decision of this cause rests upon the proper determination of a question of fact, viz., whether the appellee was in the exercise of ordinary care at the time he was struck and injured by a car run "by appellant.

We see no sufficient reason for interfering with the conclusion of the jury in this regard, sanctioned, as it has been, by the action of the court below.

The judgment of the Superior Court is therefore affirmed.