Malone v. Chicago Transit Authority
Decision Date | 09 November 1966 |
Docket Number | Gen. No. 50458 |
Citation | 76 Ill.App.2d 451,222 N.E.2d 93 |
Parties | Lucille MALONE and Betty Brown, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
H. P. Hutul, Chicago, for appellants.
William J. Lynch, O. R. Hamlink, Jerome F. Dixon, Michael A. Gerrard, Chicago, for appellee.
This is a personal injury action. Plaintiff Lucille Malone appeals from an order which dismissed her action on the ground that it was released. Plaintiff Betty Brown appeals from a directed verdict entered at the close of all the evidence.
Plaintiffs Malone and Brown are sisters. On November 8, 1956, at about 12:30 P.M., plaintiffs boarded a northwestbound Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) bus on Milwaukee Avenue at Wood Street. Lucille entered first and paid her fare. As Betty was about to deposit her fare, she noticed a car making a turn into the middle of the street. She called to the bus driver, She had pains and aches in her back, head and neck. Lucille fell back against the fare box and ended up lying on the floor with her head down. The driver asked if anyone was hurt, and both plaintiffs answered 'yes.' However, neither names nor statements were taken--'he did not do anything.' Both Lucille Malone and Betty Brown, after riding a short distance, got off the bus and called a cab.
Plaintiff Brown missed three weeks' work and visited her doctor about five times. As the doctor was unable to testify on two occasions ('emergency surgery'), the court declared plaintiff Brown's case closed without any medical testimony. At the time of the trial she still had pain in her lower back.
As to plaintiff Malone, the court dismissed her action on the ground that it had been released by operation of a general release executed by her, which was based on a later occurrence, December 25, 1961. Therefore, no evidence of her injuries was introduced.
On behalf of defendant, the evidence deposition of Isadore Romano was read into evidence. He stated that on November 8, 1956, he was working on Milwaukee Avenue on bus No. 5183. The bus left Devon and Milwaukee at 12:32 'to get Downtown to the Loop.' He estimated, On cross-examination he stated that no report was made of any sudden or emergency stop, and that
An accident investigator for the CTA testified that he interviewed Betty Brown on February 19, 1957. On cross-examination he stated that the two plaintiffs were together when he obtained the statement, and that
Initially, we consider the contention of plaintiff Brown that the court erred in directing a verdict as to her action. (Watts v. Bacon & Van Buskirk Glass Co., 18 Ill.2d 226, 229--230, 163 N.E.2d 425, 427 (1959).) Therefore, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fugate v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...Rowe, 82 Ill.App.2d 445, 226 N.E.2d 652; Nilsson v. Checker Taxi Co., 4 Ill.App.3d 718, 281 N.E.2d 721, and Malone v. Chicago Transit Authority, 76 Ill.App.2d 451, 222 N.E.2d 93, both of the last two cases involving defendants which as common carriers owed their plaintiffs the highest degre......
-
Carlson v. Chi. Transit Auth., Corp.
...incident and reviewed the evidentiary material, granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. Citing Malone v. Chicago Transit Authority, 76 Ill.App.2d 451, 222 N.E.2d 93 (1966), the trial court found no evidence in the record to establish negligence on the part of defendants. ¶ 18 Plain......
-
HealthChicago, Inc. v. Touche, Ross and Co.
...sought by an appellant or when the substantial question involved in the trial court no longer exists. (Malone v. Chicago Transit Authority (1966), 76 Ill.App.2d 451, 222 N.E.2d 93.) When a case is rendered moot, a court's decision on the merits cannot afford either party relief and any deci......
-
Graf v. Ford Motor Co.
...verdict. Defendant's citations include Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. McKee, 10 Cir., 121 F.2d 583 (1941); Malone v. Chicago Transit Authority, 76 Ill.App.2d 451, 222 N.E.2d 93 (1966); and Sjostrom v. Sproule, 34 Ill.App.2d 338, 181 N.E.2d 379 Defendant relies principally on Malone v. Chicago ......