Kolb v. O'Brien

Citations

• 86 Ill. 210

Syllabus

<p>1. Excessive damages —for personal injury through negligence. A recovery of $2,200 damages for an injury to the plaintiff’s ankle, alleged to have been caused by negligence on the part of an omnibus driver, where the actual loss of time and expenses incurred by the plaintiff were not shown to exceed $175, and the proof failed to show a permanent injury, or such negligence as to imply malice or wanton disregard of the safety of the plaintiff, was held excessive.</p> <p>2. ExempIiABY damages. In an action against the proprietor of an omnibus, to recover damages for a personal injury caused by negligence of the driven where the negligence, if any, is not of such a character as to imply malice, or a wanton disregard of the safety of the plaintiff, vindictive damages can not be allowed, but only such as are compensatory.</p> <p>3. Error—in favor of party complaining. A defendant can not be heard in this court to complain of instructions given for the plaintiff, even though not precisely accurate, if such inaccuracy operated more strongly against the latter than the former.</p> <p>4. Law and fact — question of negligence. In an action to recover damages for a personal injury received through the alleged negligence of the defendant, or his servant, it is not proper by an instruction to announce what acts were negligent, and the degree of negligence they prove. It is for the jury to say, from the evidence, whether either or both the parties were guilty of negligence, and, if so, its comparative degrees.</p> <p>5. Action — acts done by direction of police officer. If a city ordinance con- • fers power on police officers to direct, absolutely, omnibus drivers, leaving the latter no choice but to obey the officer’s order, and if, in executing such order with ordinary prudence and skill, a personal injury is inflicted, neither the driver nor his employer can be held liable in damages for the injury.</p>