City of Springfield v. Coe
| Decision Date | 03 April 1897 |
| Citation | 46 N.E. 709,166 Ill. 22 |
| Parties | CITY OF SPRINGFIELD v. COE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from appellate court, Third district.
Action by Martha Coe against the city of Springfield. A judgment in favor of plaintiff was affirmed by the appellate court, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
E. S. Robinson, City Atty., E. L. Chapin, and John C. Snigg, for appellant.
Patton, Hamilton & Patton, for appellee.
This is an action to recover for personal injuries received by appellee by reasons of a fall on the streets of the city. Appellant had taken up a paving on a street, and was about to relay the same. The street had been rolled, and its bed was about 15 inches below the curb. The appellee was going to her home on a dark night, when she stepped off and fell, receiving a painful injury. On trial in the circuit court in Sangamon county she received a verdict and judgment for $2,000. By appeal there was an affirmance by the appellate court of the Third district. In the brief filed by appellant no objection is pointed out to any instruction, and, while error is assigned in giving and refusing, the failure to designate or point out any objection or argue it in the brief is a waiver of that assignment. City of Mt. Carmel v. Howell, 137 Ill. 91, 27 N. E. 77;Harris v. Shebek, 151 Ill. 287, 37 N. E. 1015.
It is urged that the damages were excessive, and that there was a want of due care on the part of the plaintiff. All question on the giving and refusing instructions being waived, both these questions are of fact, and the judgment of the appellate court is conclusive thereon. Objection is made to the ruling of the court on the admission of evidence. Appellee's counsel asked the plaintiff what kind of care she exercised when going along the street at the point where she fell. The objection to this question was overruled, and appellant excepted. The appellee then answered: The degree of care used by the appellee was a material question in the case, which is to be proven by facts and circumstances, and not by opinions. If she is permitted to designate her degree of care she used, then she, and not the jury, determines a material fact in the case. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wheeler v. Oregon Railroad & Navigation Co.
... ... 10. As ... a general proposition of law, a person approaching a railroad ... crossing, whether a street crossing in a city or a crossing ... over a public highway in a country district, is required to ... stop, look and listen for an approaching train; and if he ... stop, look and listen. ( Brickell v. New York Cent. R ... Co., 120 N.Y. 290, 17 Am. St. 648; 24 N.E. 449; ... Fechley v. Springfield Traction Co., 119 Mo.App ... 358, 96 S.W. 421; [16 Idaho 379] Illinois Cent. R. Co. v ... McLeod, 78 Miss. 334, 84 Am. St. 630, 29 So. 76, 52 ... ...
-
Huston v. Johnson
...127 Cal. 351, 59 P. 695, 20 Mor. Min. Rep. 330; Jersey Island Dredging Co. v. Whitney, 149 Cal. 269, 86 P. 509, 691; Springfield v. Coe, 166 Ill. 22, 46 N.E. 709, 2 Neg. Rep. 11; Joliet v. Johnson, 177 Ill. 178, 52 N.E. 498; Brittenham v. Robinson, 18 Ind.App. 502, 48 N.E. 616; Hollenbeck v......
-
Wawryszyn v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
...answer, while erroneous, were merely cumulative on that point, and not of sufficient importance to require a reversal. City of Springfield v. Coe, 166 Ill. 22, 46 N.E. 709; City of Joliet v. Johnson, 117 Ill. 178, 52 N.E. 498; City of Litchfield v. Anglim, 83 Ill.App. We now come to defenda......
-
Glos v. Davis
...or argue it in the brief, is a waiver of such objection, even though it be assigned as error upon the record. City of Springfield v. Coe, 166 Ill. 22, 46 N. E. 709. The only point made by the appellant in favor of the reversal of the decree is that the appellee did not establish by the proo......