Case Name: Martin Gnatek, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago Railways Company, Defendant in Error
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1913-10-15
Citations: 182 Ill. App. 392
Docket Number: Gen. No. 17,762
Parties: Martin Gnatek, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago Railways Company, Defendant in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 182
Pages: 392–393

Head Matter:
Martin Gnatek, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago Railways Company, Defendant in Error.
Gen. No. 17,762.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Stbeet bailboads, § 131 —sufficiency of the evidence. Evidence held sufficient to sustain verdict of jury that street car company was not guilty in an action for injuries resulting from collision with a wagon.
Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Homes Abbott, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed October 15, 1913.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Martin Gnatek against Chicago Railways Company, a corporation, to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff by reason of a car belonging to defendant colliding with a wagon driven by plaintiff. From a judgment for defendant of not guilty, plaintiff brings error.
Brady & Levy, for plaintiff in error; Matthew P. Brady, of counsel.
Philip Rosenthal, Frank L. Kriete and William H. Symmes, for defendant in error; John R. Guilliams, of counsel.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number.

Opinion:
Mr. Presiding Justice Graves
delivered the opinion of the court.
2. Negligence, § 226*—when instruction on contributory negligence proper. Instruction that if plaintiff was injured while and because he was not in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety, as an ordinary prudent and cautious person would exercise under the same circumstances, he could not recover, held proper.
3. Negligence, § 226*—when instruction does not ignore question of defendant's negligence. An instruction that if the jury believes from the evidence that the sole cause of injury to plaintiff was his own negligence he cannot recover, held not erroneous because it ignores the question of defendant's negligence.
4. Instructions, § 162*—words construed. Words "established his case" in an instruction, held not objectionable as not being equivalent to "establishing the issues essential to the maintenance of the action."