Lake Erie & Western Railway Co. v. Zoffinger

Citations

• 107 Ill. 199
• 1883 Ill. LEXIS 248

Syllabus

<p>1. Appeal—reviewing controverted questions of fact. 'Where there is a direct conflict in the testimony on almost all the material facts, in an action on the case to recover for a personal injury caused by negligence, a finding by the jury for the plaintiff implies a finding of every fact the evidence tends to establish in favor of the plaintiff necessary to sustain the action, and when the Appellate Court finds the facts the same way by affirming the judgment, such finding is conclusive on this court.</p> <p>2. Negligence—facts establishing negligence. In an action on the case against a railway company, to recover for a personal injury alleged to have resulted from the negligence of defendant, where there was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff was struck by cars being moved by the defendant at a street crossing; that the train was being run at an imusual rate of speed; that no bell was rung or whistle sounded; that there was no light on the forward car that struck the plaintiff, and that plaintiff was observing due care for his safety, it was held, that such facts, assuming them to have been proven, established a clear right of recovery in the plaintiff.</p> <p>3. Ebbob will not always bevebse—admission of improper evidence. The admission of improper evidence of a trifling character, not affecting in the slightest degree the defence set up, affords no ground for reversing a judgment in favor of the plaintiff fully justified by the other facts found by the jury.</p> <p>4. Evidence—statements of a third person. In an action to recover for a personal injury by being struck by a moving car at a street crossing, the defence was a want of due care by the plaintiff, and that he was intoxicated. The defence offered to prove that just before the accident the plaintiff, in a saloon, called for a drink of liquor, and that the bar-keeper told him he had enough, which the court excluded, on objection: Held, that this evidence was not admissible, and was properly refu