TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Newman v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.

William L. Newman, Administrator v. Barber Asphalt Paving Company

Newman v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 190 Ill. App. 636 (1914)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Court of Illinois · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 31, 1914
Docket
No. Gen. No. 19,406
Judges
Baume
Citations
190 Ill. App. 6361914 Ill. App. LEXIS 238
Disposition
Reversed with finding of fact.
Headnotes
Abstract of the Decision. 1. Negligence, § 58*—when failure to fasten team and wagon left standing on street not proximate cause of injury to child. Failure of the driver of a team and wagon to fasten the horses when standing upon a public street, held not to be the proximate cause of the death of a child by being run over by a wheel of the wagon, where the evidence shows the horses did not move a greater distance than they might have moved if they had been fastened, as horses are ordinarily fastened, when standing upon a street. 2. Negligence, § 19*—extent of doctrine of attractive nuisance. The doctrine of “attractive nuisances” has not been extended to a team and wagon or other like vehicle standing or moving upon a street. 3. Negligence, § 16*—when presence of team and wagon on street does not constitute. Negligence cannot be predicated upon the mere presence upon a street of a team and wagon either stationary or in motion. 4. Negligence, § 16*—when driver leaving team and wagon on street not guilty of negligence. A driver of a team and wagon left standing upon a street, held not guilty of negligence where a child of tender years was run over by a wheel of the wagon when the team started up, it appearing that the driver did not know or had no reason to believe that the child was in a position of danger where he might be injured if the team started forward.
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Chables H. Bowles, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Baume

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Presiding Justice Baume delivered the opinion of the court.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1916: 21927: 11935: 11941: 119162026peak 1916 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Flis v. City of Chicago247 Ill. App. 128 (1927)
  2. Osby v. Tarlton85 S.W.2d 27 (Mo. 1935)
  3. Purcell v. Degenhardt202 Ill. App. 611 (1916)
  4. Szymczak v. Schillinger Bros.197 Ill. App. 585 (1916)
  5. Schlatter v. City of Peoria33 N.E.2d 730 (Ill. App. Ct. 1941)

Most recent

  1. Schlatter v. City of Peoria33 N.E.2d 730 (Ill. App. Ct. 1941)
  2. Osby v. Tarlton85 S.W.2d 27 (Mo. 1935)
  3. Flis v. City of Chicago247 Ill. App. 128 (1927)
  4. Purcell v. Degenhardt202 Ill. App. 611 (1916)
  5. Szymczak v. Schillinger Bros.197 Ill. App. 585 (1916)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list