Skenario Film Laskar Pelangi Ebook 39golkes
Download ::: https://urlin.us/2sLBqj
pada rakan-rakan saya terdiam jelek ia kepala kete 12.30.
In addition, members have the ability to gather to compare a variety of information, set up podcasts, music collections, and so forth.
33 Ill. App.2d 8 (1961)
178 N.E.2d 816
Michael D. Akers, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Darryl H. Bartholomew, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Gen. No. 10,624.
Illinois Appellate Court Third District.
October 27, 1961.
*9 Rudy Mackau, of Ottawa, for defendant-appellant.
Phillip P. Talbert, of Ottawa, for plaintiff-appellee.
This is an appeal from a verdict of $850 in favor of the plaintiff from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Illinois, on a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, a verdict of $2,000 against the defendant for medical expense. The appeal is based upon certain claimed errors, one of which is the giving of one instruction and the refusal of others requested by the defendant.
The facts disclose that on July 10, 1958, the defendant, while driving an automobile owned by the plaintiff, sustained an injury to his right knee when it struck a tree in the plaintiff's front yard.
Defendant first argues that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence because he failed to establish a proper lookout for traffic conditions. This argument is not supported by the evidence. The only evidence in the case was that the accident occurred about 9 o'clock in the morning in the plaintiff's front yard. The plaintiff testified that he was awake, that he was not asleep, and was awake at the time he saw the defendant enter the yard. His son testified that the plaintiff was awake as they watched the football game at a nearby tavern. Neither witness was contradicted. The defendant himself testified that the plaintiff was awake when the car went into the yard and that the plaintiff had stopped the car before he entered the yard. Under these circumstances there was a sufficient basis for the jury to find that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent. See Lincoln v. Moore, 348 Ill. App. 637, 109 N.E.2d 434; Harrington v. Bickel, 363 Ill. 526, 2 N 0b46394aab