Stollery v. Cicero P. St. Ry. Co., 243 Ill. 290, 90 N.E. 709. In Walters v. Ind, 319 Ill. App. 162, 48 N.E.2d 791, where there was no eyewitness, it was held that evidence of careful driving habits of the decedent was sufficient to take the case to the jury to be considered by them, "together with the other evidence and circumstances in the case, it was for them to decide whether the plaintiff had proved due care and caution on the part of plaintiff's intestate just before and at the time of the accident in question." [2] There being evidence as to circumstances and conditions at the time and place of the collision and prior thereto, the jury was entitled to weigh and consider them, and the court could not take the case from the jury.

"At the time plaintiff's evidence was offered the engineer had not testified. If it was insisted that his evidence rendered that of plaintiff incompetent, counsel for defendant should have moved to exclude plaintiff's testimony, but this was not done." In Walters v. Ind, 319 Ill. App. 162, plaintiff introduced evidence of the careful habits of decedent to which the defendant made no objection. Subsequently, one of the defendants, Raymond Hart, was called as a witness in his own behalf and testified as to the occurrence. The defendant maintained that the evidence of careful habits was incompetent because Hart was an eyewitness and testified at the trial.