Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Clark

Citations

• 70 Ill. 276

Syllabus

<p>1. Comparative negligence. In an action to recover for injury alleged to have resulted from the negligence of the defendant, it is not sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to recover, if he shall have been guilty of contributory negligence, that there was a mere preponderance, in the degree of negligence, against the defendant.</p> <p>2. The rule is, that, although the plaintiff may have been g-uilty of some negligence, still, if it is slight, as compared with that of the defendant, he may recover. But he can not recover unless the negligence of the defendant clearly and largely exceeds that of the plaintiff.</p> <p>3. Instructions—ignoring a principle involved, properly refused. In a case involving the question of comparative negligence, an instruction which ignores this principle, is properly refused.</p> <p>4. Evidence—affidavit for a continuance. Where an affidavit for a continuance is agreed to he admitted as evidence so far as it is relevant, this will not entitle the whole of it to he read in evidence, and there will he no error in excluding such parts as are not relevant.</p>