Case Name: Anthony Morolewski, Appellee, v. Richard McCurrie et al., Appellants
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1917-05-21
Citations: 205 Ill. App. 551
Docket Number: Gen. No. 22,848
Parties: Anthony Morolewski, Appellee, v. Richard McCurrie et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 205
Pages: 551–552

Head Matter:
Anthony Morolewski, Appellee, v. Richard McCurrie et al., Appellants.
Gen. No. 22,848.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Negligence, § 185 —when evidence insufficient to support verdict. Evidence in action to recover for personal injuries examined and held insufficient to support the verdict.
2. Master and servant, § 1*—when evidence insufficient to show existence of relationship. Evidence in action for personal injuries examined and held not to show existence of relation of master and servant between defendant and the person through whose negligence the injuries were alleged .to have been caused.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Oscar M. Torrison, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
Reversed with finding of fact.
Opinion filed May 21, 1917.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Anthony Morolewski, plaintiff, against the American Laundry Machinery Company, Lord & Bushnell Company and Richard McCurrie, defendants, to recover for personal injuries. At the trial plaintiff took a nonsuit as to the American Laundry Machinery Company and the jury found in favor of Lord & Bushnell Company and returned a verdict against McCurrie, on which judgment was entered for $2,650. From this judgment defendant McCurrie appeals.
Litzinger, McGurn & Reid, for appellants.
Julius B. Rubenstein and Edward J. Green, for appellee.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Holdom
delivered the opinion of the court.
3. Negligence, § 157*—when burden of proof is on plaintiff. In an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence, the burden of proving that plaintiff was in the exercise of due care, that his negligence did not contribute to cause the accident and defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of the injury, is on the plaintiff.