Case ID: ill-app_205/html/0288-01.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

Bessie Feldman, Appellee, v. Chicago Railways Company, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 22,825.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Carriers, § 476
      
      —when evidence sufficient to show injury of alighting passenger by sudden starting of car. In an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while alighting from the defendant’s street car, where plaintiff claimed to have been injured by the sudden starting of the car while she was in the act of alighting, and her uncontradicted testimony was corroborated by her son and another witness, held that, while there might have been inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s story of more or less importance, the jury could properly conclude that in its essentials it was sufficient to support the charges of negligence in the declaration.
    
      Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed April 16, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Bessie Feldman, plaintiff, against the Chicago Railways Company, defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries received while alighting from one- of defendant’s street cars and due to the sudden starting of the car. From a judgment for plainti^ for $2,000, defendant appeals.
    Watson J. Ferry, for appellant; W. W. Gurley, J. R. Gulliams, Joseph D. Ryan and Frank L. Kriete, of counsel.
    William Cullen Burns, for appellee; A. H. Ranes, of counsel.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      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.

2. Appeal and error, § 1248 —when counsel may not complain of conduct of court in administering rebuke. Where, in the argument of a personal injury case, the defendant’s attorney persisted in bringing before the jury material matter which was not strictly, part of the evidence, and which the court ruled out, and,then, upon counsel persisting, was rebuked by the court, held, that as the action of the court was invoked by the improper fconduct of counsel, the defendant could not be heard to complain on appeal.

3. Damages, § 114*—when verdict for injuries to woman is not excessive. A verdict for $2,000 held, not excessive, where a woman nine weeks pregnant, who was thrown while alighting from a street car, received injuries to her leg, stayed in bed about ten days, then suffered a miscarriage, was in bed three weeks thereafter, was for some time attended every day by her physician, also suffered considerable pain, was apparently in good health before the accident, was sick during the succeeding summer and has suffered pain in her side since then.