Chicago City Railway Co. v. McLaughlin

Citations

• 146 Ill. 353
• 34 N.E. 796

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence—of negligence in failing to stop grip ear. In an action against a city street railway company to recover damages for negligently colliding with a horse car at an intersection of the tracks, and thereby causing the death of the plaintiff’s intestate, it is competent to show, as bearing on the question of negligence, that defendant’s grip car was not so near the crossing when the horse car was crossing the cable track as to make it impossible to stop before it came in contact with the horse car.</p> <p>2. Same—opinion of witness as to distance in which cable car can be stopped. In such case, a witness testifying as to the possibility of stopping a cable car within a stated distance, can answer as to the source and basis of his knowledge. If such witness has been in the service of street car companies, a reference by him to previous experience and observation will not be improper, because it may tend to show that he was qualified to give evidence as to the distance within which it is possible to stop such a car.</p> <p>3. Same — plat of streets and intersections. In an action to recover for an injury resulting in death, caused by a collision of a cable car with a horse car, a plat of the streets, etc., is properly admissible in evidence, when a surveyor testifies that it is a correct survey of the intersections of the two roads, and that it is a ground plan of streets and intersections of streets, and also that it shows the position of the car tracks that cross, etc.</p> <p>4. Practice in Supreme Court—a party can not complain of ruling in his favor. The ruling of the court refusing to allow the plaintiff to introduce certain evidence being a ruling in favor of the defendant, he can not be heard to complain of it.</p> <p>5. Practice—remarks of court reflecting on witness. On a trial in which the witness showed a disinclination to answer a certain question, the court asked him a question on the subject, when defendant’s counsel stated that the witness had