Robinson v. Kathryn
| Citation | 23 Ill.App.2d 5,161 N.E.2d 477,74 A.L.R.2d 1089 |
| Decision Date | 23 September 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 59-M-6,59-M-6 |
| Parties | , 74 A.L.R.2d 1089 Gary ROBINSON, a Minor, by His Father and Next Friend, Dallas Robinson, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. M. KATHRYN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Twente & Jelliffe, Harrisburg, for appellant.
Everett Lewis, Elmer Jenkins, Benton, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Franklin County by reason of a judgment entered following a jury trial. The verdict and judgment were in the amount of $30,000. The action was predicated on personal injuries sustained by the nineteen year old plaintiff, Gary Robinson, and damages to his motorcycle, occasioned by the alleged negligence of the defendant. The young man was riding the motorcycle when he was either overtaken, or crowded, or turned into, the car driven by defendant. He suffered very severe injuries, principally the loss of most of his hand which was torn off by the force of the accident.
Defendant on appeal in this case contends, as a matter of law, that plaintiff failed to prove that he was free of contributory negligence, that there was insufficient evidence to show defendant was guilty of negligence, and also contends that certain errors, principally in final closing argument and in the giving of instructions, require a reversal and remandment for new trial.
On the issue of the question of contributory negligence we have repeatedly emphasized that unless there is no substantial evidence of freedom from contributory negligence the question of whether or not plaintiff was free of contributory negligence is a question of fact for the jury. On the record, the question was obviously one of fact for the jury. Similarly, if we take the evidence presented by plaintiff in its most favorable light with all reasonable intendments in support thereof, there was sufficient evidence to justify a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, and the Court would not have been justified in directing a verdict on either the issue of contributory negligence or failure to prove negligence on part of the defendant (Lindroth v. Walgreen Co., 407 Ill. 121, 94 N.E.2d 847; Kahn v. James Burton Co., 5 Ill.2d 614, 126 N.E.2d 836).
In connection with the contention that the Court below should have allowed the motion for new trial, defendant raises two significant points which we feel justify the granting of a new trial. In the first of these matters it is directed to our attention that in the final closing argument, over objection of defendant and despite a timely motion for a mistrial, the attorney for plaintiff caused the plaintiff himself...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Price v. Com., 2000-SC-0213-DG.
...his attorney referred to and commented on it during closing argument. Closer to what occurred here is the case of Robinson v. Kathryn, 23 Ill.App.2d 5, 161 N.E.2d 477 (1959), wherein a plaintiff who had been injured in a motorcycle accident was permitted to demonstrate, during his attorney'......
-
Hargroves v. Commonwealth
...... Robinson v. Kathryn , 23 Ill.App.2d 5, 8, 161 N.E.2d 477 (1959). A demonstration during closing argument, however, which involves the actual victim and ......
-
Delnick v. Outboard Marine Corp., 2-89-0716
...one Illinois case addressing the propriety of counsel's own demonstration during closing argument. In Robinson v. Kathryn (1959), 23 Ill.App.2d 5, 161 N.E.2d 477, the court held that it is proper for an attorney to demonstrate an occurrence if such demonstration is sustained by evidence in ......
-
Atene v. Lawrence
...... . Page 699. Ruth, 376 S.W.2d 292 (Ky. 1964); 2 Feldmiller v. Olson, 75 Wash.2d 322, 450 P.2d 816 (1969); 3 cf. Robinson v. Kathryn, 23 Ill.App.2d 5, 161 N.E.2d 477 (1959). 4 In my view, these precedents control the instant case. [456 Pa. 548] The ......