delivered the opinion of the court.
Schwickrath v. Chicago City Railway Co., 189 Ill. App. 352 (1914)
Oct. 13, 1914
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 19,982
189 Ill. App. 352
Peter Schwickrath, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant.
Gen. No. 19,982.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Harry M. Waggoner, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.
Reversed and remanded.
Opinion filed October 13, 1914.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Peter Schwickrath against Chicago City Railway Company to recover damages for personal injuries received by plaintiff in a collision between a wagon in which plaintiff was driving and one of defendant’s cars. Plaintiff claimed that he was driving north on Halsted street in the northbound tracks of defendant and that he was struck by a northbound car when he attempted to turn his team across the southbound track. Defendant’s evidence tended to show that plaintiff was driving north on the east side of the street between the northbound track and the *353curb, and that at a time when the car was about thirty feet behind him the plaintiff suddenly turned his team westward across the tracks in front of the northbound car. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Abstract of the Decision.
Street railroads, § 149 * —when refusal of requested instruction prejudicial. In an action to recover for personal injuries received by plaintiff in a collision between a wagon he was driving and a street car, a requested instruction which told the jury that if they believed that as the street car approached the place in question it was being operated with ordinary care, that the plaintiff drove his team in the way of the car so suddenly that the motorman had no notice of any danger to said plaintiff as to give him an opportunity to avoid the danger by the exercise of such presence of mind and of such ordinary care as is to be expected from a man of ordinary coolness and prudence, and under such circumstances as were then surrounding him, then they should find the defendant not guilty, held to contain a correct statement of the law touching the conduct of the motorman, and a refusal of the court to give the same held reversible error, in view of the fact that the case was a close one on the facts.
Watson J. Ferry, for appellant; Leonard A. Busby, Warner H. Robinson and John E. Kehoe, of counsel.
Daniel A. Levy, for appellee; John F. Tyrrell and William H. Devenish, of counsel.