delivered the opinion of the court.
McGurk v. Chicago City Railway Co., 201 Ill. App. 570 (1916)
Oct. 30, 1916
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 22,377
201 Ill. App. 570
Alice McGurk, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant.
Gen. No. 22,377.
(Not to he reported in full.)
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richard S. T.uthill, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1916.
Reversed with finding of fact.
Opinion filed October 30, 1916.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Alice McGurk, plaintiff, against the Chicago City Railway Company, defendant, in the Circuit Court of Cook county, to recover for personal injuries sustained as a result of being struck by the rear portion or overhang of a street car. From a judgment for plaintiff for $2,000, defendant appeals.
It appeared that plaintiff was struck by a northbound car rounding the curve from Jackson Park avenue while turning westward into 56th street in Chicago.
Jackson Park avenue runs north and south but does not extend beyond 56th street, which -runs east and west. At the junction of these streets the car tracks turn westward into 56th street, and the regular stopping place of northbound street cars is in 56th street after rounding the curve. The car was a large car of the pay-as-vou-enter type. There was testimony that the normal overhang of the cars was two feet one and three-fourth inches outside the rail, but on the curve at the maximum this would be three feet six inches more. Plaintiff was standing just south of the crosswalk on the south side of 56th street and three or four feet from the track. She signaled the motorman to stop and then walked southward, expecting the car to stop before striking the curb, but it continued slowly *571around to the regular stopping place. As the overhang in the rear began to swing out plaintiff did not avoid it and was struck. There was uncontradicted testimony that the motorman when he came near called and signaled her to stand back from the car. A passenger on the platform testified in detail as to the motions of the motorman indicating to plaintiff that she should stand away from the car, at the same time telling her to “stand back.” Plaintiff apparently moved back about two feet, but could not be seen from the front platform after the front end of the car had passed her. Plaintiff testified, that she did not notice the warning.
Abstract of the Decision.
Street railroads, § 131 * —When evidence insufficient to show negligence of defendant. In an action to recover for personal injuries sustained by being struck by the rear portion or overhang of a “pay-as-you-enter” street car as it rounded a street corner, evidence examined and held insufficient to prove that defendant was negligent as alleged in the declaration.
Busby, Weber & Miller, Franklin B. Hussey and Arthur J. Donovan, for appellant; John B. G-uilliams, of counsel.
Richard J. Finn, for appellee.