
    Bridget McDonald, Appellee, v. Peter E. Modine et al., Defendants (Peter E. Modine, Appellant.)
    Gen. No. 17,769.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Roads and bridges, § 240
      
      —what constitutes contributory negligence. Where a person was knocked down and injured by a horse in the street, held, that the crowded condition of such street, the rate of speed at which the horse was driven and the right of the person to assume that the driver would have the horse under control were all factors to he considered in determining whether the person exercised due care for her own safety, and since such question was one of fact, the finding of the jury, which was not contrary to the manifest weight of evidence, would not he disturbed.
    2. Roads and bridges, § 232*—what constitutes negligence. A person who drives upon a crowded street at a trot without keeping a lookout is guilty of negligence.'
    Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Habry C. Moran, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 15, 1913.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Bridget McDonald against Peter E. Modine and others, to recover damages for personal injuries. From a judgment for plaintiff for twelve hundred dollars, defendant appeals.
    Winston, Payne, Strawe & Shaw, for appellant; Edward W. Everett, Benjamin J. Richolson and J. Sidney Condit, of counsel.
    Samuel Shope Page, Cecil Page and Johe R. Harrington, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Damages, § 207*—when instruction is not erroneous. An instruction as to damages stating that the jury may estimate same from the evidence in connection with their own knowledge and experience is not necessarily erroneous; especially where the record does not show the elements of damages as claimed in the declaration, the defendant having contended that there was no evidence in support of certain elements.  