Young v. Patrick
| Decision Date | 28 October 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 17413.,17413. |
| Citation | 323 Ill. 200,153 N.E. 623 |
| Parties | YOUNG v. PATRICK. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Third Branch, Appellate Court, First District, Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; Jesse Holdom, Judge.
Action by Mary N. Young, administratrix, against John W. Patrick, Jr. The Appellate Court affirmed the action of the superior court in instructing the jury to find defendant not guilty, and plaintiff brings writ of certiorari.
Reversed and remanded.
James J. Barbour and Edward H. S. Martin, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Burt A. Crowe, of Chicago, for defendant in error.
This court has granted a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the action of the superior court of Cook county in instructing the jury in a personal injury case to find the defendant not guilty.
Plaintiff in error is the widow of Louis W. Young. Young was struck by the defendant in error's automobile, driven by the latter. He died a few hours later. The question presented to us is whether or not there is in the record sufficient evidence for plaintiff in error to have justified the submission of the cause to a jury.
There were no eye witnesses to the accident. It occurred at the junction of Hinman avenue and Lee street, in the city of Evanston. Hinman avenue extends north and south and Lee street east and west. Each street has a roadway approximately 30 feet in width and is paved with macadam. At the time of the accident the pavement had been oiled, but was not greasy or slippery. The testimony shows that it was dry. There was a jog of about 30 feet on Hinman avenue at its intersection with Lee street, so that the sidewalk on the west side of Hinman avenue south of Lee street is about in line with the sidewalk on the east side of Hinman avenue north of Lee street. The deceased was struck while crossing the avenue on the north side of Lee street, but it is not shown whether he was walking east or west at the time of the accident. The testimony of one witness for plaintiff in error was that defendant in error stated after the accident that he did not see the deceased until he struck him. The testimony showed that it was in the early evening on the 9th of August, 1922, and that it was not yet dark. The testimony also showed that on the pavement, leading back from the hind wheels of defendant in error's car, which was a small sedan, were two marks showing the car had skidded for a distance of about 40 feet; that these marks also showed that the car had not passed around the center of the intersection of Hinman avenue and Lee street, but had cut across on the left side of the center.
Plaintiff in error on the trial introduced a number of witnesses...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Ladd
......323;. Berkovitz v. American River Gravel Co., 191 Cal. 195, 215 P. 675; Friedler v. Hekeler, 96 Conn. 29,. 112 A. 651; Young v. Patrick, 323 Ill. 200, 153 N.E. 623; Tucker v. Carter (Mo. App.) 211 S.W. 138;. Scholl v. Grayson, 147 Mo.App. 652, 127 S.W. ......
-
Cereste v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co.
......Young" v. Patrick, 323 Ill. 200, 153 N.E. 623; Toledo St. L. & K. C. Ry. Co. v. Bailey, 145 Ill. 159, 33 N.E. 1089; McCormick on Evidence (1954) p. 342. . \xC2"......
-
Hughes v. Vestal, 453
...... Young v. Patrick, 323 Ill. 200, 153 N.E. 623; Knight v. Knight, 52 Wash.2d 219, 324 P.2d 797; Mathews v. Carlson, 130 So.2d 625 (Fla.App.). There were no ......
-
Watkins v. Schmitt
......Stratton, 26 Ill.App.3d 475, 480, 325 N.E.2d 732 (1974). In Young v. Patrick, 323 Ill. 200, 202, 153 N.E. 623 (1926), this court held that skid marks "positively identified by the witness as being the marks made by ......