Borkowsky v. Chicago City Railway Co., 205 Ill. App. 573 (1917)

May 28, 1917 · Illinois Appellate Court · Gen. No. 22,935

205 Ill. App. 573

Barbara Borkowsky, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant.

Gen. No. 22,935.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Damages, § 110 ^* —when verdict for personal injuries is excessive. In an action by a passenger for injuries alleged to have been received by the starting of the car, evidence held insufficient to sustain a verdict for $3,500 for bruises on the head and impairment of vision, alleged to be due to the accident.

2. Appeal and ebbob, § 1401*—when verdict intended to compensate for injuries not causally related to accident witl not he sustained. In an action for personal injuries, the court will not, on appeal, permit a verdict to stand which was manifestly intended to compensate for injuries, the causal relation of which to the accident is not sufficiently shown.

Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John A. Mahoney, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed May 28, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Barbara Borkowsky, plaintiff, against the Chicago City Railway Company, defendant, to recover for a breach of contract to transport her property. From a verdict and judgment of $3,500 for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Warren D. Bartholomew and Charles Le Roy Brown, for appellant; John R. Guilliams, of counsel.

John W. Leedle, for appellee; Koch, Leedle & Rapp, of counsel.

* See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

* See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Damages, § 188*—when evidence insufficient to show that impairment of vision was due to accident. In an action for personal injuries alleged to have been received through the starting of defendant’s car as plaintiff was alighting, evidence held insufficient to show that the impairment of vision complained of was due to the accident.

4. Appeal and error, § 1474 ^* —lohen admission of conjecture and speculation of expert witness is reversible error. In an action for personal injuries, the admission of conjecture and speculation of a medical witness as to what might produce or cause the condition found by him in plaintiff, is reversible error.

5. Evidence, § 410*-—what opinion of medical witness may not be given. In an action for personal injuries, it is error to permit a medical witness to testify that plaintiff would eventually become blind, though how long thereafter he could not state, as such an opinion is merely speculative.

6. Evidence, § 368*-—when witness may not testify as to subjective conditions. In an action for personal injuries it is error to permit a witness to testify as to subjective conditions of plaintiff.