B. Shoninger Co. v. Mann

• Decision Date: 20 December 1905
• Citation: 76 N.E. 354,219 Ill. 242
• Parties: B. SHONINGER CO. v. MANN.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

219 Ill. 242

76 N.E. 354

B. SHONINGER CO.

v.MANN.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 20, 1905.

Appeal from Appellate Court, First District.

Action by Edward Mann, by his next friend, against the B. Shoninger Company. From a judgment of the Appellate Court, affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Rehearing denied February 8, 1906.

Rosenthal, Kurz & Hirschl, for appellant.

David K. Tone, Arnold Heap, and P. J. Keenan, for appellee.

HAND, J.

This was an action on the case, commenced in the superior court of Cook county by Edward Mann, by his next friend, against the appellant, to recover damages by reason of an injury to his person sustained by him in consequence of his falling down an unguarded elevator shaft in a building in the city of Chicago which was under the control of the appellant. The declaration contained two counts. The general issue was pleaded, and upon a trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $10,000, upon which verdict the court, after overruling a motion for a new trial, rendered judgment, which judgment, upon appeal, was affirmed by the Appellate Court for the First District, and a further appeal has been prosecuted to this court. The defendant, at the close of all the evidence, moved the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict in its favor. This the court declined to do, and the action of the court in that regard is assigned as error.

The evidence introduced on behalf of the plaintiff fairly tended to prove that the appellant was in possession of a four-story building known as 267 and 269 Wabash avenue, in the city of Chicago, under a lease from the owner; that it sublet the several floors of said building to different tenants for business purposes; that Thompson & Thomas becamethe lessees of the second and fourth floors; that the building, which fronts east, had a freight elevator in its rear part, which was reached from an entry which opened upon a north and south alley which ran in the rear of the building; that defendant retained the control of the halls, entry, and elevator in the building for the common use of its several tenants; that the plaintiff was 16 years of age, and had been in the employ of Thompson & Thomas for two or three weeks prior to his injury as an errand boy; that he had only been in the elevator two or three times prior to the accident; that at about 5:30 on the evening of December 10, 1901, in company with two other boys, he was directed by his employers to take to the rear entrance of the building certain packages, which were there to be delivered to the agents of several of the express companies doing business in said city. The boys placed the packages in the elevator, and went with them to the first floor. The packages were there removed by them and placed in the entry which led to the alley. It was quite dark in that part of the building, and they had with them a lantern, which was carried by one of the boys other than the plaintiff. There was also a stationary lamp in the elevator. While the boys were sorting out the packages and delivering them to the agents of the express companies, the man in charge of the elevator, without closing the door of the shaft, took the same to an upper floor of the building. During the process of delivering the packages, the plaintiff stepped near the elevator shaft and slipped and fell into the shaft, where he was severely and permanently injured by striking upon the floor of the basement. The man in charge of the elevator did not close the elevator door when the elevator left the first floor or give notice to those present that the elevator was about to ascend, and the plaintiff testified he did not know, before he slipped into the elevator shaft, that the elevator had been taken up to another floor or that the approach to the elevator shaft was unguarded.

It is first contended that the evidence does not show that the appellant was guilty of actionable negligence. The law is well settled in this state that a landlord who rents different parts of a building to various tenants, and retains control of the stairways, passageways, hallways, or other methods of approach to the several portions of the building for the common use of the tenants, had resting upon him an implied duty to use reasonable care to keep such places in a reasonably safe condition, and that he is liable for injuries which result to persons lawfully in the building from a failure to perform such duty. Payne v. Irvin, 144 Ill. 482, 33 N. E. 756;Burke v. Hulett, 216 Ill. 545, 75 N. E. 240. The plaintiff, therefore, being lawfully in the entryway to the elevator, the defendant owed a duty to him to keep said elevator shaft in a reasonably safe condition. The evidence shows at the time the plaintiff was injured the entryway...