Chicago City Ry. Co. v. James R. Henry.

• Decision Date: 30 September 1871
• Citation: 62 Ill. 142,1871 WL 8343
• Parties: CHICAGO CITY RAILWAY COMPANY et al.v.JAMES R. HENRY.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

62 Ill. 142

1871 WL 8343 (Ill.)

CHICAGO CITY RAILWAY COMPANY et al.

v.JAMES R. HENRY.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1871.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Du Page County; the Hon. SILVANUS WILCOX, Judge, presiding.

This was an action on the case brought by appellee in the Superior Court of Cook County against the Chicago City Railway Company, and Michael Moran, the conductor. The testimony was voluminous, but the conclusions of fact therefrom are stated in the opinion.

Messrs. HITCHCOCK, DUPEE & EVARTS, for the appellants.

Messrs. COOPER & PACKARD, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action on the case, brought by appellee in the Superior Court of Chicago, against appellants to recover damages for injuries claimed to have been received by being ejected from the cars of the company. The venue was subsequently changed to the circuit court of Du Page County, where a trial was had before the court and a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment for $12,000 against appellants.

It is first urged that the verdict is clearly against the evidence. The evidence is conflicting, and as it is the province of the jury in such cases to weigh it, unbiased, and free from extraneous considerations, we shall forbear to comment on its weight, as the case must be submitted to another jury when the same evidence will no doubt be again introduced.

When the evidence is attentively considered, we are irresistibly forced to the conclusion that the verdict is glaringly excessive. The injury bears but a slight comparison to the damages awarded. It is proved, and seems not to be contradicted, that appellee arose immediately after striking the ground, pursued the car, overtook, and caught hold of it, and called upon persons present to witness and remember the circumstances. He seems to have walked a considerable distance the same evening after the occurrence, and went to work the next day as usual, but swears he felt sore and a little dizzy. On being examined by his physician, some six or eight days after, no abrasion, contusion, or other external injury to the head was discovered, nor apparent injury to any portion of his body. In all of this we have nothing that indicates severe injuries. But some ten days later, when another physician was called in consultation, the appearance of a depression was discovered on one side of his head. But whether natural, accidental, and of long or recent standing does not appear. Nor do we see that it was caused by the fall from the car.

That appellee was injured there seems to be no doubt, but whether the injury is serious and permanent, from the evidence, there is great doubt. His medical witnesses do not express any very decided opinion on that point. They incline to the opinion that, when a severe injury has been received by the nervous system, the person seldom ever recovers completely. But whether appellee has received such an injury appears to be more than doubtful. After being out of employment for about four months, the firm with whom he was engaged procured his return to his former employment at the same wages, which they have regularly paid him ever since; and one of the members of the firm says they employed him because he was better qualified for the place than any one else...