Chicago v. Otto
| Decision Date | 30 September 1869 |
| Citation | 1869 WL 5462,52 Ill. 416 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANYv.WILLIAM OTTO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Rock Island county; the Hon. GEO. W. PLEASANTS, Judge, presiding.
The opinion states the case.
Mr. GEORGE C. CAMPBELL, for the appellant.
Messrs. HAWLEY & GEST, for the appellee.
This was an action of trespass on the case, to recover damages for an injury sustained by appellee while he was a passenger on appellants' train of cars. The declaration contained two counts, alleging that appellee was a passenger from Rock Island to Moline; that he had paid his fare; that the conductor refused to stop the train at Moline, and forcibly ejected him from the cars, whereby he was thrown on the ground, and his shoulder was dislocated, whereby he sustained damage.
On the trial in the court below, the jury found for plaintiff, and defendant entered a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and judgment rendered on the verdict, from which the defendants prayed on appeal, and bring the record to this court, and ask a reversal on the grounds, that an improper instruction was given for appellee, and a proper instruction asked by appellants was modified before it was given, and in overruling the motion for a new trial.
On behalf of appellee, the court gave this instruction:
“If the jury believe from the evidence that the plaintiff is entitled to recover, and that he has substantially proved his declaration, then, in fixing the damages he ought to recover, they ought to take into consideration all the circumstances surrounding the case, such as the circumstances attending the injury; the loss of time of the plaintiff, if any, occasioned by the injury; the pain he has suffered, if any; the money he has expended, if any, to be cured of such injury, and the business he was engaged in, if any, at the time he was injured, and the extent and duration of the injury, and give him such damages as, in their opinion, he ought to recover.” It is urged that this instruction is erroneous. It lays down the true measure of damages, and confines the jury to the evidence in the case.
The jury were told that they were to consider all the circumstances surrounding the case, and then the circumstances were specifically pointed out; nor does the instruction refer to or authorize the jury to consider any other than the circumstances appearing in evidence. We perceive no objection to this instruction, and it was properly given.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Chicago v. Honey
...v. McGiven, 78 Ill. 347; Chicago v. Bixby, 84 Ill. 82; Chicago v. Fowler, 60 Ill. 322. That the damages are not excessive: C. R. I. & P. R. R. Co. v. Otto, 52 Ill. 416; P. C. & St. L. R'y Co. v. Thompson, 56 Ill. 138; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Parks, 88 Ill. 373; Ottawa v. Sweely, 65 Ill. 434......
-
Rankin v. Kinsey
...C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Gregory, 58 Ill. 272; Malburn v. Schreiner, 49 Ill. 69; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Pondrom, 51 Ill. 333; C. R. I. & P. R. R. Co. v. Otto, 52 Ill. 416; Sulzer v. Yott, 57 Ill. 164. It is proper to refuse an instruction calculated to mislead: Frame v. Badger, 79 Ill. 441. Er......
-
Chicago v. Warner
... ... 542] pain. Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Read, 37 Ill. 484; Morris v. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy R. R. Co. 45 Iowa, 29; Whalen v. Railroad Co. 60 Mo. 323; Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific R. R. Co. v. Otto, 52 Ill. 416; Chicago v. Scholten, 75 Id. 468; Chicago and Alton R. R. Co. v. Bonfield, 104 Id. 225. There was evidence of plaintiff's age at the time of the injury, and of his business then and now,--evidence of his present and future disability by the loss of his arm. Peoria Ins. Co. v ... ...
-
Fisher v. Jansen
...in City of Chicago v. Martin, 49 Ill. 246, and the identical language was embodied in an instruction which was approved in Railroad Co. v. Otto, 52 Ill. 416. It is true that nothing is said in Association v. Loomis, nor in City of Chicago v. Martin, in respect to the specific proof required......