Case ID: ill-app_202/html/0120-01.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

Charles E. Sanderson, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 22,437.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthlll, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1916.
    Reversed with finding of fact.
    Opinion filed November 27, 1916.
    Rehearing denied December 11, 1916.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Charles E. Sanderson, plaintiff, against the Chicago City Railway Company, defendant, in the Circuit Court of Cook county, to recover for personal injuries sustained as a result of a collision between defendant’s car and a wagon which plaintiff was driving, causing plaintiff to be thrown from the wagon. From a judgment for plaintiff for $625, defendant appeals.
    
      John E. Kehoe and Frank L. Kriete, for appellant; W. W. Gurley and J. B. Guilliams, of counsel.
    A. H. Banes, for appellee.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    Street railroads, § 98
      
      —when driver of wagon guilty of contributory negligence. A driver of a wagon proceeding north on the east side of a street, who, after seeing an approaching southbound car two blocks to the north of him, stopped to allow a northbound car to pass and suddenly, without any previous indication of his intention of doing so, turned west across the southbound track immediately behind the northbound car while the southbound car was but fifteen feet away and running at from seven to ten miles an hour, and was struck by it before he could clear the track, held guilty of contributory negligence barring a recovery for the injury sustained as the result of the collision.
    
      
      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.