Barnes v. Rembarz

Citations

• 150 Ill. 192

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice — special finding — precluding recovery on general verdict. In au action against a .manufacturing corporation to recover for a personal injury resulting from negligence, the jury found for tlie plaintiff, and in response to tlie question, “Could tlie plaintiff, by reasonable attention or the exercise of ordinary prudence, have known that it was dangerous to use a stick in the machine in the manner testified to by himself,” answered “YesHeld, that while this finding tended to establish the fact that the plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care, it was not conclusive, and that there may have been other evidence tending to relieve the plaintiff’s act of such negligence as to preclude a recovery.</p> <p>2. Same — presumption in favor of general verdict. All reasonable presumptions will be entertained in favor of the general verdict, while nothing will be presumed in aid of the special findings of fact. The inconsistency between the general verdict and the special findings must be irreconcilable, so as to be incapable of being removed by any evidence admissible under the issues, to warrant the court to set aside the general verdict.</p>