Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Bluhm
Citations
- 109 Ill. 20
- 1884 Ill. LEXIS 1403
Syllabus
<p>1. Appeal—reviewing questions of fact. In an action by a servant against his master to recover for an injury caused by the use of a defective derrick in raising lumber, the question as to what was the cause of the injury, or the combination of causes producing the result, is one of fact, which by law it is not the duty of this court to consider. So, also, is the question whether the damages are excessive.</p> <p>2. Evidence—as to the result of a personal injury, as, the breaking of an arm. In case, for an injury by the breaking of the plaintiff’s arm, there is no error in admitting proof that the bones at the fracture had failed to unite, and had formed what is called a “false joint,” as it is not a question of law for the court to determine whether this was the result of the breaking of the arm as a proximate cause, or the result of a new, independent factor. Such question can properly be tested only by hearing the evidence, and submitting the questions of fact to a jury, under appropriate instructions.</p> <p>3. Negligence—contributory negligence—duty of one receiving personal injury, as to care bestowed after the fact. A plaintiff can not hold the defendant responsible for an injury to himself caused even in part by his own fault in failing to use ordinary care or ordinary judgment, or for any injury not resulting from the fault of the defendant, but caused by some new intervening cause not incident to the injury caused by the defendant’s wrongful act or omission of duty.</p> <p>4. In a case where the plaintiff’s arm has been broken from the negligent conduct of the defendant, and the plaintiff exercises ordinary care to keep the parts together, and uses ordinary care in the selection of surgeons and doctors, and nurses, if needed, and employs those of ordinary skill and care in their profession, and still, by some unskillful or negligent act of such surgeon, doctor or nurses, the bones fail to unite, thereby making a false joint, the defendant, if responsible
Judges: Dickey
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
19 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Doremus v. HennessyIllinois Supreme Court· 1898-10-24· cited 170×
- Chicago City Railway Co. v. SaxbyIllinois Supreme Court· 1904-12-22· cited 44×
- Joliet, Aurora & Northern Railway Co. v. VelieIllinois Supreme Court· 1892-01-18· cited 41×
- Chicago City Railway Co. v. CooneyIllinois Supreme Court· 1902-04-16· cited 27×
- Guth v. VaughanAppellate Court of Illinois· 1923-12-26· cited 17×
- Elliott v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri· 1903-05-19· cited 13×
- Variety Manufacturing Co. v. LandakerIllinois Supreme Court· 1907-04-18· cited 12×
- Meyer v. ButterbrodtIllinois Supreme Court· 1893-05-08· cited 11×
- Southern Ry. Co. v. PruettSupreme Court of Alabama· 1917-11-15· cited 4×
- West Chicago Railroad v. BodeIllinois Supreme Court· 1894-06-19· cited 4×
- Chicago City Ry. Co. v. CooneyAppellate Court of Illinois· 1901-06-20· cited 3×
- Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. WhiteFifth Circuit· 1900-05-01· cited 3×
- Horney v. St. Louis & Northeastern Railway Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1911-04-15· cited 3×
- Aubuschon v. WittSupreme Court of Missouri· 1967-02-13· cited 2×
- City of Sandwich v. DolanAppellate Court of Illinois· 1889-12-16· cited 2×
- City of Joliet v. Le PlaAppellate Court of Illinois· 1903-06-25· cited 2×
- Beeler v. WebbIllinois Supreme Court· 1885-03-30· cited 1×
- Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. R. v. BurridgeAppellate Court of Illinois· 1903-03-02
- Rhodes v. Northern Traction Co.Summit County Court of Common Pleas· 1901-04-15
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.