71 N.E. 1096 (Ill. 1904), Economy Light & Power Co. v. Hiller
|Citation:||71 N.E. 1096, 211 Ill. 568|
|Opinion Judge:||WILKIN, J. (after stating the facts).|
|Party Name:||ECONOMY LIGHT & POWER CO. et al. v. HILLER.|
|Attorney:||[211 Ill. 569] Knox & Akin, for appellant Economy Light & Power Co. Holt, Wheeler & Sidley, for appellant Chicago Telephone Co. J. W. D'Arcy, for appellee.|
|Case Date:||October 24, 1904|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Illinois|
Appeal from Appellate Court, Second District.
Action by Frederick Hiller against the Economy Light & Power Company and another. From a judgment of the Appellate Court affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
[211 Ill. 568] This is an action on the case, brought by Frederick Hiller, appellee, against the Chicago Telephone Company and the Economy Light & Power Company, appellants, to recover for personal injuries sustained by him in Joliet, Ill. On the morning of October 23, 1900, the appellee, a boy about 11 years old, was on his way to school in company with several other boys. On the night previous there had been a heavy rainstorm, and an electric light wire belonging to the Economy Company had sagged down until it came in contact with the wire of the telephone company, resulting in the telephone wire burning off and the end of the wire falling to the ground. Two of the boys picked up the loose end of the wire, suffering no injury. Appellee then picked it up and received a severe shock, which knocked him down and rendered him unconscious. Upon a trial a verdict was rendered for $5,000 against both appellants, but subsequently $2,500 was remitted. Judgment was rendered upon the verdict, and defendants prayed [211 Ill. 569] and were allowed separate appeals to the Appellate Court for the Second District, where they were heard and decided as one appeal, and the judgment of the circuit court affirmed. From that judgment of affirmance separate appeals are again taken to this court, and two sets of abstracts, briefs, and arguments filed. The appeals have been consolidated in this court. The grounds of reversal urged by the respective appellants are substantially the same.
Several questions of fact are urged by counsel for appellants, which have been conclusively settled by the judgment of the Appellate Court. Others are raised, which are settled by the former opinion of this court in a case growing out of the same facts and circumstances. See 203 Ill. 518, 68 N.E. 72.
It is insisted...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP