Andrews v. Boedecker

• Decision Date: 15 November 1888
• Citation: 126 Ill. 605,18 N.E. 651
• Parties: ANDREWS v. BOEDECKER.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

126 Ill. 605

18 N.E. 651

ANDREWS

v.BOEDECKER.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

November 15, 1888.

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

This action was begun in the superior court of Cook county, by Mary Boedecker, administratrix of Henry J. Boedecker, deceased, against Alfred H. Andrews and Frank Douglas, for negligently causing the death of plaintiff's intestate, who was killed by a pile of lumber falling on him. Plaintiff obtained judgment against defendant Andrews for $2,500 From this judgment Andrews appealed to the appellate court, where the judgment was affirmed, and he now appeals from the decision of the appellate court. Plaintiff's second instruction, which was given, was as follows: ‘(2) The court instructs the jury that, if they find from all the evidence in this case that the deceased was lawfully upon the premises where he was killed, in the exercise of proper care and caution, and that the defendant, by his agents or servants, caused lumber to be piled upon the premises adjoining the premises where deceased was; and if the jury further find from the evidence that such lumber was piled in a careless, negligent, and unsafe manner, and that by reason of such careless, negligent, and unsafe piling such lumber fell or slid over and upon the deceased and killed him,-then the jury should find the defendant guilty, and the jury should assess the plaintiff's damages.’ Defendant's third instruction, which was refused, was as follows: ‘(3) The jury are further instructed on behalf of the defendant, Andrews, that in order to hold him responsible for the negligence of the witness Honey, if they believe from the evidence said Honey was guilty of any negligence, they must find from the evidence in the case that said Honey was the servant of said Andrews, and was, in the matter about which negligence is alleged against him, acting in good faith as such servant, and in the line of his employment; and, in determining whether or not said Honey was in such matter the servant of Andrews, the jury must consider the evidence, and find therefrom whether the said Honey was subject to the control of said Andrews in respect to the time, manner, means, instruments, and other details of the work, if any, which he might do for or on behalf of said Andrews, and, if not so subject, then said Honey was not the servant of said Andrews in that behalf.’Lyman M. Paine, for appellant.

George W. Stanford, for appellee.

BAKER, J.

All controverted questions of fact in the case are...