delivered the opinion of the court.
Harovsky v. Chicago City Railway Co., 205 Ill. App. 571 (1917)
May 28, 1917
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 22,897
205 Ill. App. 571
Josef Harovsky, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company and United States Express Company, on appeal of United States Express Company, Appellant.
Gen. No. 22,897.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Oscar E. Heard, Judge, presiding. .Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed May 28, 1917.
Statement of the Case.
Action for personal injuries by, Josef Harovsky, plaintiff, against the Chicago City Railway Company and United States Express Company, defendants. *572From a verdict and judgment against both defendants for $2,000, defendants appeal separately. For appeal by other defendant, see ante, p. 570.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Negligence, § 187*—when evidence is sufficient to show negligence of express company and lack of contributory negligence of pedestrian struck by wagon. In an action against a street railway company and an express company to recover for injuries to plaintiff, received while walking on a sidewalk, through a collision between a street car ^,nd an express wagon which caused the wagon to strike plaintiff, evidence examined and held sufficient to support a finding that the express company was guilty of negligence and that plaintiff was free from contributory negligence.
2. Negligence, § 240 * —when refusal of instruction on test of negligence of driver of express wagon injuring pedestrian is proper. In an action against a street railway company and an express company to recover for personal injuries to plaintiff, received while he was walking on a sidewalk, through a collision between a street car and an express wagon which caused the wagon to strike plaintiff, it is not error to refuse an instruction making the test of the driver’s negligence whether or not he had knowledge that the plaintiff, on the sidewalk, might be injured.
Winston, Payne, Strawn & Shaw, for appellant; Edward W. Everett and C. B. Fullerton, of counsel.
David K. Tone and F. A. Rockhold, for appellee.