Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantnegligencetestimonymotion
plaintiffdefendantnegligencemotionsustainedappellee

Related Cases

Stewart v. Wilmington Trust SP Services, Inc., 112 A.3d 271
View Case »
Wright v. St. Mary’s Medical Center of Evansville, Inc., 59 F.Supp.2d 794
View Case »
Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 647 F.Supp. 303, 24 ERC 2017, 17 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,081
View Case »
Jordan v. Baptist Three Rivers Hosp., 984 S.W.2d 593
View Case »
Faber v. Menard, Inc., 367 F.3d 1048, 93 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1730, 85 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,722, 149 Lab.Cas. P 59,866
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Barker v. Danville St. Railway & Light Co., 193 Ill.App. 639, 1915 WL 2167

Facts

On the morning of the accident, Amelia Barker crossed a street to board a streetcar. The motorman allegedly motioned for her to go around the front of the car to the rear door. As she did so, another streetcar approached on a parallel track without warning and struck her, causing injuries. There was conflicting testimony regarding whether the motorman directed her to pass around the car and whether the approaching car's gong was sounded.

The appellee on the morning of the accident crossed a street to take a street car standing on the westerly of two tracks. The car had a door on the west side of the north end and one on the east side of the south end. Appellee testified that the motorman in the front vestibule motioned to her to go around the front end of the car to the door on the east side of the rear end; that when she passed around the north end of the car she saw another car coming on the other track, and that it stopped on the opposite crossing; that she then started towards the rear door of the car, and that the other car then started up without ringing a gong or giving any signal and caught and rolled her between it and the stationary car and injured her.

Issue

Was the Danville Street Railway & Light Company negligent in the circumstances leading to Amelia Barker's injuries, and was she exercising due care?

In an action against a street railway company for personal injuries sustained by a woman who, while passing around the front and side of a stationary street car in obedience to a motion from the motorman, in order to enter the car, was struck by another car which approached on a parallel track, the question of the negligence of the defendant, as well as whether the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care, are for the jury, where there was a conflict in the evidence as to whether the motorman directed the plaintiff to pass around the car, and also whether the gong of the approaching car was rung.

Rule

In personal injury actions against street railway companies, the question of negligence and the exercise of due care are typically for the jury, especially when evidence is conflicting.

In an action against a street railway company for personal injuries, the question of negligence and the exercise of due care are typically for the jury, especially when evidence is conflicting.

Analysis

The court analyzed the conflicting evidence regarding the motorman's actions and the warning signals from the approaching car. It determined that the jury was justified in finding that the motorman's alleged direction to Barker and the lack of warning from the other car contributed to the incident. The court emphasized that the jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant's negligence played a role in the accident.

The court analyzed the conflicting evidence regarding the motorman's actions and the warning signals from the approaching car. It determined that the jury was justified in finding that the motorman's alleged direction to Barker and the lack of warning from the other car contributed to the incident.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of Amelia Barker, concluding that the evidence supported the jury's finding of negligence on the part of the street railway company.

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of Amelia Barker, concluding that the evidence supported the jury's finding of negligence on the part of the street railway company.

Who won?

Amelia Barker prevailed in the case because the jury found sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the Danville Street Railway & Light Company, which led to her injuries.

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of Amelia Barker, concluding that the evidence supported the jury's finding of negligence on the part of the street railway company.

You must be