Union Rolling Mill Co. v. Gillen

Citations

• 100 Ill. 52
• 1881 Ill. LEXIS 68

Syllabus

<p>1. Instruction—as to cause of accident in suit for negligence. In a suit to recover for a personal injury claimed to have resulted from the negligence of the defendant railroad company, an instruction for the plaintiff, that if, while the plaintiff was crossing the track, the defendant ran its train upon the track, recklessly and negligently, without ringing a bell or blowing a whistle, or giving a warning of any kind, and ran a car upon and against the plaintiff’s wagon, thereby smashing the same and throwing plaintiff from his seat in the wagon, thereby causing to the plaintiff serious injury, then plaintiff is entitled to recover, especially in view of the conflicting character of the evidence, was held not. erroneous, as omitting the vital condition that the reckless running of the train, and failing to give the usual signals, must have been the cause of the accident. The word “thereby,” in the instruction, was intended to refer to all that preceded it, both as to the act of propulsion and the act of striking.</p> <p>2. New trial—obviated by a remittitur. There is no error in denying a motion for a new trial in an action ex delicto, where the plaintiff, by entering a remittitur, reduces the damages awarded by the jury to an amount the court considers reasonable.</p> <p>3. Same—newly discovered evidence. Although the newly discovered evidence shown for a new trial may have an important bearing on a second trial, yet a new trial will be denied where the requisite diligence has not been exercised to discover such evidence.</p>