Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Payne

Citations

• 49 Ill. 499

Syllabus

<p>1. Instructions—right of parlies to have the law clearly stated in the instructions. It is the right of every party to insist that the law applicable to his. case shall be fairly and distinctly stated in the instructions, and it is not sufficient, that a part of the instructions contain a correct exposition of the law, if it is incorrectly announced in others.</p> <p>2. Same—when taken together—must he consistent. Instructions given to a jury, should announce the law of the case with accuracy and precision, and when taken together be consistent, in order that the jury may be aided, and not misled, in arriving at a verdict.</p> <p>3. Negligence—of comparative negligence. Negligence, resulting in injury, is comparative, and it is not required that the plaintiff, in an action against a railroad company, to recover for injuries received by reason of the^alleged negligence of the latter, shall be free from all negligence himself, or that he shall exercise the highest possible degree of prudence and caution, to entitle him to recover, if it appear the defendant was guilty of a higher degree of negligence.</p> <p>4. But in cases of mutual negligence, to authorize a recovery by the plaintiff, the negligence on the part of the defendant must be so much greater than that of the plaintiff, as to clearly preponderate.</p> <p>6. And where the negligence is equal, or nearly so, or that of the plaintiff is greater, he cannot' recover.</p>