delivered the opinion of the court.
Hack v. Chicago & Interurban Traction Co., 201 Ill. App. 572 (1916)
Oct. 30, 1916
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 22,380
201 Ill. App. 572
Charles Hack, Appellee, v. Chicago & Interurban Traction Company, Appellant.
Gen. No. 22,380.
(Not to he reported in full.)
Appeal from the City Court of Chicago Heights; the Hon. Charles H. Bowles, 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 Charles Hack, plaintiff, against the Chicago & Interurban Traction Company, defendant, in the City Court of Chicago Heights, to recover for injuries sustained by a collision at a street car crossing between the automobile plaintiff was driving and defendant’s street car. From a judgment for plaintiff of $2,000, defendant appeals.
The accident took place at the comer of 12th street and Halsted street. Plaintiff was fifty-seven years of age, and had been accustomed to driving in that neighborhood for four years. He knew of the track in Halsted street and that cars ran frequently in both directions, and that a car might be coming along there at any time. He had been driving this same automobile for four years. At the time, he was moving along 12th street at a speed of about seven miles an hour, and his car was in good condition and equipped with brakes. He said he could have stopped within fourteen feet. There was a single track in Halsted street, the east rail of which was about five feet west of the center line of the street. A wagon road ran along the east side of the track. There were no buildings south of 12th street and east of Halsted except at the extreme northeast corner of the block. This accident happened near the northwest corner. The testimony showed that from a point on 12th street at least three hundred and *573fifty feet east of Halsted there was a clear, practically unobstructed view across the vacant block. It was also established without contradiction that the east rail of the car track was five feet west of the center line of the street and approximately thirty-eight feet from the east line of Halsted street. Plaintiff testified that from the time he was one hundred feet from the" track he did not look to see whether a car was coming or not.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Street railroads, § 95 * —what is duty of one about to cross car track. The driver of an automobile approaching the intersection of a street and a street car track which he intends to cross is bound, where the view is unobstructed, to make a reasonable use of his series to guard his own safety, and to look for approaching cars at su..a a distance as will enable him to ascertain whether one is in sight, and a failure to do so is negligence.
2. Street railroads, § 95*—when duty to look for approaching car. In an action where the defense is that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in attempting to cross a street car track with his automobile without ascertaining in sufficient season whether cars were approaching, the question of contributory negligence is to be determined by the situation when plaintiff was at such a distance before going on the track that he could control his machine and avoid the danger, rather than by probabilities.
3. Street railroads, § 131*—when evidence shows contributory negligence. In an action to recover for injuries sustained in a collision at a street car crossing betwen a car and plaintiff’s automobile, which he was driving, where contributory negligence was relied on in defense, evidence examined and held that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
Busby, Weber & Miller and Arthur J. Donovan, for appellant.
Howe, Fordham & Kreamer and John C. Everett, for appellee; John C. Everett, of counsel.