Beidler v. Branshaw

Decision Date16 December 1902
PartiesBEIDLER et al. v. BRANSHAW.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

Action by Louisa A. Branshaw, administratrix, against John Beidler and others, administrators. From a judgment of the appellate court (102 Ill. App. 187) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.

Magruder, C. J., and Carter, J., dissenting.F. J. Canty and A. B. Melville (J. C. M. Clow, of counsel), for appellants.

William F. Dever, for appellee.

This is an action on the case, brought by the appellee in the superior court of Cook county to recover damages for an injury to her husband, which resulted in his death. The suit was brought against Jacob Beidler, the owner of the building in which was situated the elevator upon which appellee's husband was a passenger at the time of the injury. Beidler having died prior to the trial, appellants, as administrators, were substituted as defendants. The declaration consisted of one count, and averred the injury to have occurred by reason of the negligence of the defendant in failing to erect a guard or railing around the elevator, and in permitting a large iron beam to project into the elevator shaft. The general issue was filed, and a trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the appellee for $3,000, which has been affirmed by the appellate court for the First district, and a further appeal has been prosecuted to this court.

At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, and again at the close of all the evidence, the defendant moved the court to instruct the jury to find for the defendant, which the court declined to do, and the action of the court in that regard is mainly relied upon to reverse the case. There is but little, if any, conflict in the evidence, which shows that Jacob Beidler, in his lifetime, was the owner of a building situated at No. 127 West Washington street, in the city of Chicago, five stories high, with a basement, which was occupied by tenants. The building fronts south, and extends north to an alley known as ‘Waldo Place.’ At the rear of the building was located an elevator shaft, operated by Beidler for the use of his tenants. There was a stairway at the side of the elevator shaft, but the occupants of the building and their employés usually used the elevator in going from the different floors of the building, instead of the stairs; the elevator being used for both passengers and freight. The walls of the elevator shaft were brick, there being no openings in the east or south wall, but in the west wall there were five doors, one for each floor, and in the north wall, which was a part of the wall of the building, there was a door and five windows. The botton of the door in the north wall was on substantially a level with the first door, and opened into Waldo Place. It was about 5 1/2 feet wide by 6 1/2 feet high, and was the place through which freight was received and shipped out of the building. The door opened and closed by sliding up and down in a recess in the inside of the north wall, which is about 8 inches deep, 5 1/2 feet wide, and 16 feet high. In the recess above the top of the door when raised there is located a window, which is about 3 feet square, and contains two panes of glass 24 by 28 inches; and immediately above the window frame, which is about 3 1/2 inches wide, is an iron slab, about 6 1/2 feet in length, 1 1/2 inches in thickness, and 8 inches in width, which is set into the wall at each end, and supports the wall above the widown, and is the lintel of the window. From the internal edge of the iron slab or lintel back to the wall on the under side of the slab or lintel it is about 8 inches. The elevator car is 6 1/2 feet square, with a flat bottom, and has guards or sides on the east and south about 3 1/2 feet high, but has none on the north or west side. As the car passes up and down the shaft the north side of the car, as it passes said slab or lintel, comes within about 1 1/4 or 1 1/2 inches of the inside of the slab or lintel. Appellee's intestate, who was 44 years old, had been in the employ of Howe & Davidson, tenants of Beidler, who occupied the second and fourth floors of said building as manufacturers, for about one year prior to his injury. He worked generally as a teamster, hauling materials to and from the building, and when not so employed he was engaged as a laborer or porter in the factory. November 30, 1896, at about 11 o'clock a. m., he got upon the elevator with a truck, on which was a package of paper and paper boxes, about 2 1/2 feet long by 2 feet wide. The truck was about 5 1/2 feet long and about 3 feet wide, and the total height of the truck and load was about 4 feet. The truck stood the long way east and west, and was in about the center of the car, and there was a space of about 18 inches between the truck and the north edge of the car. The deceased stood on the north side of the car, facing south, with his back to the north door....

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • Orcutt v. Century Building Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 22 Febrero 1907
    ...the defendants here owed to plaintiff a duty, which is well defined in cases of passengers on freight trains. In the case of Beidler v. Branshaw, supra, a case injury upon a freight elevator, Justice Hand said: "The law is well settled in this State that persons operating elevators in build......
  • Stumpf v. Baronne Building, Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • 16 Febrero 1931
    ...219; Steiskal v. Marshall Field & Co. (1909) 238 Ill. 92, 87 N.E. 117; Fraser v. Harper House Co., 141 Ill.App. 390; Beidler v. Branshaw, 200 Ill. 425, 65 N.E. 1086; Siegel, Cooper & Co. v. Trcka, 218 Ill. 559, 75 1053, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 647, 109 Am. St. Rep. 302; Tippecanoe L. & T. Co. v.......
  • Dunlap v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 15 Julio 1911
    ... ... recover. Gallagher v. Snellenburg, 210 Pa. 642; ... Railroad v. Dewees, 153 F. 56; Beidler v ... Brandshaw, 200 Ill. 425; Burns v. Chem. Co., 65 ... A.D. 424. The elevator was intended for freight only; and it ... was a trespass to use ... ...
  • Orcutt v. Century Bldg. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 22 Diciembre 1906
    ...under given circumstances. Springer v. Ford, 189 Ill. 430, 59 N. E. 953, 52 L. R. A. 930, 82 Am. St. Rep. 464; Beidler v. Branshaw, 200 Ill. 425, 65 N. E. 1086. In our judgment the doctrine announced in these cases is the correct one. A person or corporation running an elevator to transport......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT