Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
ยง

Culp v. Olive

45 Ill. App. 2d 396 (Ill. App. Ct. 1964)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Culp v. Olive

3 Citing cases

  1. Matteucci v. High School Dist. No. 208

    281 N.E.2d 383 (Ill. App. Ct. 1972)   Cited 9 times
    In Matteucci v. High School Dist., 281 N.E.2d 383 (Ill.App.Ct. 1972), the minor plaintiff was a fourteen-year-old high school student injured in his high school wood shop class by using a band saw without the blade guard attached.

    The omission of reference to proximate cause is cured by plaintiff's Instruction No. 10 defining this term (IPI 15.01) and plaintiff's Instruction No. 13 on burden of proof on the issues (IPI 21.02). (See Culp v. Olive, 45 Ill. App.2d 396, 195 N.E.2d 729.) We find the various subparagraphs of the issues instruction to be proper, particularly in the light of the conclusions set forth in other portions of this opinion.

  2. Logue v. Williams

    111 Ill. App. 2d 327 (Ill. App. Ct. 1969)   Cited 18 times
    In Logue, the plaintiff called a witness to testify about a conversation in which the defendant stated, "`I have just hit a man, a boy or something, down the road and they are pinned under my car because I can hear them hollering.'"

    [7] The plaintiff next alleges that a "sudden emergency" instruction given by the Court, Defendant's No. 4, was erroneous. Although IPI ยง 12.02 (1961) recommended that the instruction not be given, the identical instruction was given in Culp v. Olive, 45 Ill. App.2d 396, 195 N.E.2d 729 (1964) and there held to be harmless error, the Court saying: "We are fully aware of the thinking of the committee which prepared IPI. The principle giving rise to their recommendation that such an instruction not be given is, `It states a simple and obvious fact about human behavior' . . . `when no juror would need to be reminded of the proposition.' If this reasoning is adopted, and if this matter is the proper subject of comment on final argument as suggested by the committee, then we fail to see how plaintiff was prejudiced by the giving of the instruction.

  3. Hitt v. Langel

    236 N.E.2d 118 (Ill. App. Ct. 1968)   Cited 22 times
    In Hitt v. Langel (1968), 93 Ill. App.2d 386, 393, 236 N.E.2d 118, 122, the court said: "`Each party is entitled to have the court instruct the jury on his theory of the case, provided that there is an evidentiary basis for the instruction. "

    We further note that the drafters of the Illinois Pattern Instructions recommended that no instructions be given on this subject concluding that it was argumentative, stated an obvious fact about human behavior and under many circumstances would lead to reversible error. See IPI No. 12.02 and Culp v. Olive, 45 Ill. App.2d 396, 195 N.E.2d 729. We do not entirely agree with the recommendation of the drafters of IPI and can visualize or hypothecate situations in which such instruction would be proper, but under the record in this case, even assuming the instruction should have been given, we find the error to be harmless.