Tull v. Clarke

<p>Abstract of the Decision.</p> <p>1. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 13*—when statement of claim in action of fourth class for personal injuries is sufficient. Under section 40 of the Municipal Court Act (J. & A. f 3352), a cause of action is sufficiently set forth by a statement of claim in a fourth-class action, which recites that plaintiff sustained injuries, on or about a certain date, in an alley in the City of Chicago, by reason of defendant’s negligence in using a skid which was defective and of insufficient strength to support a certain cask of great weight, and which broke while the said cask was being lowered thereon, injuring plaintiff while walking in said alley and while exercising due care and caution for his own safety. (</p> <p>2. Appeal and error, § 365*—necessity of raising question in' trial court. A question not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.</p> <p>3. Damages, § 122*—when verdict for personal injuries not excessive. A verdict for $1,000 for personal injuries cannot be said to be excessive where the evidence tends to show that plaintiff sustained a severe strain of the leg, resulting in chronic arthritis, that his leg was badly swollen for 2 or 3 months after the injury; that he was obliged to use a crutch for some 6 months thereafter; that he limped and had pains in his knee, and up to the time of the trial continued to have chronic arthritis of the knee joint.</p> <p>4. Damages, § 192*—discretion of jury in assessment of. In an action to recover for personal injuries, the assessment of the damages rests in the sound discretion of the jury, under the guidance of proper instructions.</p>