Seeds v. Chicago Transit Authority

Decision Date21 September 1951
Docket NumberNo. 31896,31896
Citation409 Ill. 566,101 N.E.2d 84
PartiesSEEDS et al. v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

William H. Arpaia and Harry W. Altman, both of Chicago, for appellant.

Werner W. Schroeder, William S. Allen, Fred J. O'Connor, and Arthur J. Donovan, all of Chicago (James O. Dwight and James E. Hastings, both of Chicago of counsel), for appellee.

HERSHEY, Justice.

Plaintiffs, Frederick Seeds, Mrs. James A. Wood, and George Seeds, filed a joint suit in the circuit court of Cook County to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have resulted from the negligence of the defendant, Chicago Transit Authority, in operating one of its passenger buses. The jury returned verdicts in favor of all three plaintiffs, and found pliantiff Frederick Seeds not guilty of the negligence charged in a counterclaim. The trial court overruled motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial and entered judgment on the respective verdicts. The Appellate Court reversed all three judgments and remanded the cause, with directions to enter judgment in favor of the defendant. The cause is here on leave to appeal, granted by this court.

On May 6, 1947, at about 6:30 P.M., Frederick Seeds was driving his 1929 Oldsmobile sedan automobile in a northwesterly direction along Higgins Road, a four-lane highway in the city of Chicago. Riding as guests with him were his father, George Seeds, his sister, Mrs. James A. Wood, and her husband, together with their small baby. The brother-in-law, James A. Wood, was riding in the front seat, while the father, sister, and the baby occupied the rear seat of the automobile. Proceeding in the same direction, and immediately in front of the Seeds car, was a passenger bus operated by the defendant. Both the bus and the Seeds car were proceeding along the inside lane, near the middle line of the street. The pavement was wet from a rain which had fallen a short time earlier in the afternoon. The bus stopped for the purpose of discharging passengers at Meade Avenue, whereupon the right front of the Seeds car came in contact with the left rear portion of the bus, causing some damage to both vehicles.

Count 1 of the complaint charged that the negligent operation of the bus resulted in personal injuries to Frederick Seeds, the driver of the Seeds car. Count 2 contained the same charge of negligence against the defendant and alleged resultant injuries to Mrs. James A. Wood. Count 3 was the same as count 2 except that George Seeds was the plaintiff alleged to have received the resultant injuries. Defendant's counterclaim charged that the negligence of plaintiff Frederick Seeds, at the time of the occurrence, caused damage to its bus. The jury, in separate verdicts, awarded $100 damages to Frederick Seeds, $300 to his father, George Seeds, and $4600 to his sister, Mrs. James A. Wood. Separate judgments were accordingly entered on the respective verdicts. Plaintiff Frederick Seeds was found not guilty of the negligence charged in the counterclaim. On appeal, the Appellate Court found, as a matter of law, that Frederick Seeds was guilty of contributory negligence. The Appellate Court also found, as a matter of law, that the negligence of Frederick Seeds was the proximate cause of the injury to his father, George Seeds, and his sister, Mrs. James A. Wood, who were guests riding in his automobile at the time of the occurrence.

At the outset of the case we are confronted with the question of this court's jurisdiction to consider the appeal, insofar as it relates to the plaintiffs Frederick Seeds and George Seeds. This court has only such appellate jurisdiction as is given to it by law, and of its own motion may inquire into the matter of its jurisdiction regardless of whether or not the parties raise that question. Prudential Ins. Co. v. Hoge, 359 Ill. 36, 193 N.E. 660. It must be remembered that in the complaint the causes of action of the three plaintiffs were kept separate and distinct. The first count charged that negligent acts of the defendant resulted in personal injuries to Frederick Seeds. The second count alleged that the same negligent acts resulted in personal injuries to Mrs. James A. Wood. The third count made the same charge on behalf of George Seeds. The jury returned separate verdicts, responsive to the separate counts in the complaint. Separate judgments were entered in accordance with the separate verdicts of the jury. This joinder of parties and causes of action was permissible under section 23 of the Civil Practice Act. Ill.Rev.Stat. 1949, chap. 110, par. 147.

The jurisdiction of this court to entertain the appeal arises out of the provisions of section 75 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill.Rev.Stat. 1949, chap. 110, par. 199,) which makes a judgment of the Appellate Court final, except upon issuance of a certificate of importance, in all cases sounding in damages where the judgment in favor of plaintiff, exclusive of costs, shall be less than $1500. The only judgment in the cause which exceeds the jurisdictional amount of $1500 was the judgment for $4600 rendered in favor of the plaintiff Mrs. James A. Wood. Under the prohibition of the statute we are not permitted to review the other two judgments, which were rendered for amounts less than that required to confer jurisdiction upon this court. Nor does the statute permit the three judgments to be added together or tacked one to the other in order to confer jurisdiction. Antosz v. Goss Motors, Inc., 378 Ill. 608, 39 N.E.2d 322. And the facts that the three causes of action arose out of the same transaction, and that the same evidence is relied upon in all three, do not change this conclusion, since it is the amount of the judgment and not the evidence by which the cause is sought to be established or defeated that determines the jurisdiction of this court. Merritt v. Crane Co., 225 Ill. 181, 80 N.E. 103. The fact that the Appellate Court did in fact issue a certificate that there is fairly involved in the claim of the plaintiffs $1500 or more does not confer jurisdiction. The provision under which the Appellate Court certifies a jurisdictional amount does not apply to cases in which the judgment is in favor of the plaintiff, and, exclusive of costs, is not for $1500 or more. Zechman v. Zechman, 391 Ill. 510, 63 N.E.2d 499. For the above reasons, it is clear that leave to appeal was improvidently granted insofar as it relates to the judgments in favor of Frederick Seeds and George Seeds. Therefore, out further consideration of this appeal must be confined to a determination of the correctness of the judgment of the Appellate Court insofar as it relates to plaintiff Mrs. James A. Wood.

Pursuant to a finding, as a matter of law, that the proximate cause of the injury to plaintiff Mrs. James A. Wood was the negligence of another plaintiff who was the driver of the car in which she was riding as a guest, the judgment of the Appellate Court was to the effect that the trial court should have granted defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. A defendant's motion for a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict preserves for review only a question of law as to whether there is any evidence, standing alone and when considered to be true, together with the inferences which may legitimately be drawn therefrom, which fairly tends to support the verdict of the jury; and before such question may be resolved against the plaintiff's verdict, it must appear not only that the facts bearing on such question are not in dispute, but also that reasonable men would draw the same inference from such undisputed facts. Berg v. New York Central Railroad Co., 391 Ill. 52, 62 N.E.2d 676; Ziraldo v. W. J. Lynch Co., 365 Ill. 197, 6 N.E.2d 125. The rule is that in considering such a motion the trial court should consider the evidence most strongly in plaintiff's favor and give to it every reasonable intendment favorable to plaintiff. The court should not weigh the evidence with the same particularity as it would upon a consideration of all the evidence on a motion for new trial....

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Pedrick v. Peoria & E. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • May 18, 1967
    ...848; Tucker v. New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad Co., 12 Ill.2d 532, 536, 147 N.E.2d 376. See also Seeds v. Chicago Transit Authority, 409 Ill. 566, 570, 101 N.E.2d 84. Even though we have not intended to establish two separate rules, the language accompanying the statement of the ru......
  • Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • January 4, 1963
    ...v. Warner, 37 Ill.App.2d 204, 206, 185 N.E.2d 392; Pennington v. McLean, 16 Ill.2d 577, 582, 158 N.E.2d 624; Seeds v. Chicago Transit Authority, 409 Ill. 566, 570-571, 101 N.E.2d 84.) There can be no doubt that the law has for many years recognized the principle that liability can arise fro......
  • Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • March 18, 1964
    ...as we must under the circumstances of the appeal, (Pennington v. McLean, 16 Ill.2d 577, 582, 158 N.E.2d 624; Seeds v. Chicago Transit Authority, 409 Ill. 566, 571, 101 N.E.2d 84,) it is our conclusion that the jury could reasonably find that the scope of McClain's safety inspections did ext......
  • Goodman v. Motor Products Corp.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 6, 1956
    ...tends to prove the material elements of his case. Wilk v. Hagen, 410 Ill. 158 at page 161, 101 N.E.2d 585; Seeds v. Chicago Transit Authority, 409 Ill. 566, 101 N.E.2d 84; Lindroth v. Walgreen Co., 407 Ill. 121 at page 130, 94 N.E.2d 847; Gorczynski v. Nugent, 402 Ill. 147 at page 156, 83 N......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT