From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Breitmeier v. Sutera

Appellate Court of Illinois, Chicago, First District
Nov 7, 1945
327 Ill. App. 221 (Ill. App. Ct. 1945)

Opinion

Gen. No. 42,910. (Abstract of Decisions.)

Opinion filed November 7, 1945 Released for publication November 27, 1945

AUTOMOBILES AND MOTOR VEHICLES, § 164instruction as objectionable because not stating law correctly. In action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when struck by defendant's automobile, where instruction to jury recited statute providing that pedestrians crossing roadway should yield right of way to vehicles under certain circumstances, and directed that if jury believed from evidence that plaintiff violated such statute, and if that was proximate cause of injury, then plaintiff could not recover, held that instruction was objectionable because it did not correctly state law with respect to rights of pedestrian on public highway or duties of vehicle operator, and because it omitted subsection (d) of statute referred to (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1945, ch. 95 1/2, par. 172; Jones Ill. Stats. Ann. 85.204).

See Callaghan's Illinois Digest, same topic and section number.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. FRANCIS B. ALLEGRETTI, Judge, presiding.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial. Heard in the third division, first district, this court at the December term, 1943.

Sher Karlin, for appellant;

Leo S. Karlin, of counsel;

Wyatt Jacobs and Walter A. Christopher, for appellee.


Not to be published in full. Opinion filed November 7, 1945; released for publication November 27, 1945.


Summaries of

Breitmeier v. Sutera

Appellate Court of Illinois, Chicago, First District
Nov 7, 1945
327 Ill. App. 221 (Ill. App. Ct. 1945)
Case details for

Breitmeier v. Sutera

Case Details

Full title:Joseph Breitmeier, Appellant, v. Sam P. Sutera, Appellee

Court:Appellate Court of Illinois, Chicago, First District

Date published: Nov 7, 1945

Citations

327 Ill. App. 221 (Ill. App. Ct. 1945)
63 N.E.2d 667

Citing Cases

Randal v. Deka

Both instruction 35 and instruction 36, because subparagraph (d) of the statute was omitted therefrom, did…

Parkin v. Rigdon

"The instruction directed a verdict, and errors it contains are not cured by other instructions." [1] In the…