Case Name: Mark L. Riley, Appellant, v. City of Chicago, Appellee
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1917-11-30
Citations: 208 Ill. App. 260
Docket Number: Gen. No. 23,144
Parties: Mark L. Riley, Appellant, v. City of Chicago, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 208
Pages: 260–261

Head Matter:
Mark L. Riley, Appellant, v. City of Chicago, Appellee.
Gen. No. 23,144.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles H. Bowles, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1917.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed November 30, 1917.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Mark L. Riley, plaintiff, against the City of Chicago, defendant, to recover for personal injuries. From a verdict and judgment in his favor for $50, plaintiff appeals.
Morse Ives, for appellant.
Samuel A. Ettelson and Charles R. Francis, for appellee; Robert H. Farrell, of counsel.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice O'Connor
delivered the opinion of the court.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. New tut at., § 58 —when granted because of inadequacy of verdict. Contrary to the common-law rule, under the modem rule a new trial may be awarded where the verdict is grossly inadequate for the same reasons as where the verdict is excessive.
2. Negligence, § 250*—when verdict is not against manifest weight of evidence. In an action to recover for personal injuries, evidence examined and held not to show that the verdict was manifestly against the weight thereof.