Case Name: Morris Novitsky, Administrator, Plaintiff in Error, v. Knickerbocker Ice Company, Defendant in Error
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1916-06-19
Citations: 199 Ill. App. 593
Docket Number: Gen. No. 21,076
Parties: Morris Novitsky, Administrator, Plaintiff in Error, v. Knickerbocker Ice Company, Defendant in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 199
Pages: 593–594

Head Matter:
Morris Novitsky, Administrator, Plaintiff in Error, v. Knickerbocker Ice Company, Defendant in Error.
Gen. No. 21,076.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Appeal and ebbob, § 1725 —when opinion on prior appeal law of case.' The opinion of the Appellate Court on a prior appeal is the law of the case.
2. Evidence, § 232*—when coroner's verdict admissible. A coroner’s verdict containing a finding as to the location of the place where an accident occurred is admissible in evidence in an action for the negligent death of the person killed.
3. Negligence, § 109*—when instruction on negligence of parents of child proper. In an action for the negligent death of a boy seven years of age at a street intersection while on his way from his father’s shop to his home, about one block away, an instruction that if the jury believed “from the evidence that the parents of the deceased, or either of them, was negligent in allowing deceased to go upon the street at the place of the accident and at the time of the accident," then their verdict should be for the defendant, held proper.
Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Mabcus A. Kavanagh, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed June 19, 1916.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Morris Novitsky, administrator of the estate of Samuel Novitsky, deceased, plaintiff, against Knickerbocker Ice Company, a corporation, defendant, for damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of the death of Samuel Novitsky. From a judgment finding the, defendant not guilty, and upon a judgment for costs entered on said verdict, plaintiff sued out this writ of error.
Edgar L. Masters, for plaintiff in error.
Miller, Gorham; & Wales and McKinley & Hansen, for defendant in error.
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.

Opinion:
Mr. Presiding Justice Pam
delivered the opinion of the court.
4. Roads and bridges, § 239 —when evidence sufficient to sustain finding that driver of team not intoxicated. In an action for the negligent death of a boy seven years of age who was killed near a street intersection as the result of being run over by a wagon, evidence held sufficient to sustain a finding that the driver was not intoxicated.
5. Appeal and error, § 1526*—when giving of erroneous instructions on negligence of defendant not prejudicial error. The giving of an erroneous instruction on the negligence of a defendant is not prejudicial error where the jury, which rendered a verdict for defendant, could not reasonably have rendered any other verdict.
6. Roads and bridges, § 239*—when evidence insufficient to show negligence of driver of wagon in running over hoy. In an action for damages for the death of a boy seven years of age who, while on his way north on a street to his home instead of passing north on a crosswalk over an intersecting street, wandered down such latter street and crossed to the rear and west of two street cars standing near such intersection, and was struck and run over as he stepped from behind such cars by a wagon which had just turned the corner from the north and was proceeding on the north side of such cars, evidence held sufficient to show that the driver was not negligent.