delivered the opinion of the court.
Devine v. Northwestern Elevated Railroad, 184 Ill. App. 64 (1913)
Dec. 22, 1913
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 18,328
184 Ill. App. 64
John F. Devine, Administrator, Appellant, v. Northwestern Elevated Railroad Company, Appellee.
Gen. No. 18,328.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. John McNutt, Judge, presiding.
Heard in this court at the March term, 1912.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed December 22, 1913.
Statement of the Case.
Action by John F. Devine, administrator of Josephine Welter, deceased, against Northwestern Elevated Bailroad Company, a corporation, to recover damages for the death of deceased alleged to have been caused by being struck by one of defendant’s *65cars at a street crossing. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff brings error.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Trial, § 268 * —right to special findings. In any case in which the jury renders a general verdict they must, on the request of a party, be required to find specially upon any material question or questions of fact.
2. Negligence, § 247 * —right to special finding with reference to question of due care of plaintiff. In an action for damages for negligently causing death, defendant is entitled both to an instruction to find for defendant if deceased was guilty of negligence contributing to the accident and also to a special finding whether deceased was in the exercise of proper care and caution at the time of the accident.
3. Negligence, § 250 * —when failure of instruction to define care required of plaintiff, not reversible error. Failure of instructions on question of due care of plaintiff to define “due and proper care and caution” and “ordinary care,” held not reversible error where it is doubtful whether any attempted definition of the words used would have made their meaning clearer.
4. Negligence, § 250 * —when omission in instruction not reversible error. Omission of an instruction to state that the failure by the deceased to exercise due and proper care which would prevent a recovery for plaintiff is limited to cases where such failure caused or contributed to the injury and death of deceased, held not reversible error.
5. Negligence, § 247 * —when error in excluding questions ashed on cross-examination not reversible error. Error in sustaining objections to questions asked on cross-examination concerning defendant’s negligence, held not reversible error in view of a special finding of jury that deceased was not in the exercise of due care at the time of the accident.
O’Donnell, Dillon & Toolen, for appellant.
Addison L. Gardner for appellee.