delivered the opinion of the court.
Fellows-Kimbrough v. Chicago City Railway Co., 190 Ill. App. 17 (1914)
Nov. 30, 1914
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 19,836
190 Ill. App. 17
Marie A. Fellows-Kimbrough, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant.
Gen. No. 19,836.
(Not to he reported in full.)
Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles A. McDonald, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed November 30, 1914.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Marie A. Fellows-Kimbrough against Chicago City Railway Company for personal injuries sus*18tained by plaintiff in a collision between street cars. To reverse a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff for thirty-seven hundred and fifty dollars, defendant appeals.
The facts relating to the accident are as follows: Thirty-fifth street in Chicago runs east and west, and Indiana avenue north and south, and where they intersect the street car lines of the defendant cross each other at right angles. On the day of the accident plaintiff was riding on an eastbound Thirty-fifth street car. As it was crossing Indiana avenue a car coming from the south on Indiana avenue did not stop to permit the Thirty-fifth street ear to pass safely but ran into it knocking it partly off the track. Defendant conceded that under the circumstances the Indiana avenue car should have stopped at the south cross walk and have permitted the Thirty-fifth street car to make the crossing with safety. The explanation of this failure to stop was that although the motorman on the Indiana avenue car attempted to stop it at the usual place by turning the controller handle, which would shut off the electrical power, his attempts were unavailing by reason of a defect in the mechanism in the controller box. The particular defect is said to have been that one of the “fingers” which are fastened to the “terminals” in the controller box was bent so as to prevent the turning of the controller handle. It also appeared there was another device connected with the car called a canopy switch which might have been used by the motorman to stop the car in case the controller failed to work. It was located over the head of the motorman and one of its purposes was automatically to turn off the electric power when there is an overload of electric current. It could also be operated by turning a switch handle which shut off the power when for any reason the mechanism of the controller box failed to turn off the current. This device was the means by which the motorman finally brought the car to a stop.
*19Abstract of the Decision.
1. Carriers, § 381 * —sufficiency of evidence to show negligence of motorman in failing to avert collision. In an "action against a street railway company for personal injuries received by plaintiff in a collision between a street car on which she was a passenger and another car at a street intersection, where the defense was that the motorman on the latter car was unable to stop his car by reason of a defect in the mechanism qf the controller box, a verdict for plaintiff held sustained by the evidence, there being evidence to show that the motorman could have stopped his car had he turned a canopy switch connected with the car and used for the purpose of turning off the electric power.
2. Damages, § 115*—when verdict for personal injuries not excessive. A verdict for thirty-seven hundred and fifty dollars for personal injuries to a woman held not excessive, where it appeared she "received bruises on her body, arms and legs and a fracture of one or two ribs and that she suffered from traumatic neurasthenia, and it also appeared that previous to the accident she was in robust health, and a physician in active practice earning two hundred dollars per month.
3. Appeal and error, § 1514*—when improper remarks of counsel not reversible error. Improper remarks of plaintiff’s counsel in his address to the jury held not so prejudicial as to require reversal, where it appeared that the statements made were such as reacted against the plaintiff rather than to the disadvantage of defendant.
Charles Le Roy Brown, for appellant; Leonard A. Busby and John E. Kehoe, of counsel.
Harvey E. Wynekoop and Edward Maher, for appellee; Guerin & Barrett, of counsel.