Consolidated Coal Co. v. Bruce

Citations

• 150 Ill. 449
• 37 N.E. 912

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence — proof of ownership of a mine. On the trial of a suit brought by a miner against the alleged owner and operator of a mine, one of the witnesses designated the mine as the defendant’s, and one of the surgeons who treated the plaintiff for his injuries testified that the defendant paid him for attending on either the defendant or some one else injured at the mine: Held, that such evidence, uncontradicted, had some tendency to show that the defendant was the owner of the mine, and was sufficient evidence to justify the court in submitting the question to the jury.</p> <p>2. Negligence — ■whether proven. The failure of a miner, while moving a oar in a dark, low*and narrow passage of a ooal mine, having no other light than a lamp carried by him, to discover such a grade in the track upon which the car was standing as would cause the car to run of its own momentum, without having his attention previously called to the grade, does not raise any implication of negligence on the part of the miner, so as to defeat a recovery by him for a personal injury. On the contrary, the failure to make such discovery may be entirely consistent with the exercise of ordinary care.</p> <p>3. Same — a question Jor the jury. Where a plaintiff, in his testimony, fully details the circumstances attending his injury, the question, whether he was in the exercise of due care or not, depends wholly upon the construction and force to be given to his evidencé. It is a mere question of fact for the jury whether the plaintiff was guilty of negligence.</p> <p>4. Practice in the Supreme Court — errors not urged in the Appellate Court. This court is not disposed to hold that any error was committed by the Appellate Court in overruling or ignoring assignments of error which were not insisted upon or called to its attention.</p>