Bogovich v. Schermer
| Decision Date | 07 February 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 57-0-11,57-0-11 |
| Citation | 16 Ill.App.2d 197,147 N.E.2d 711 |
| Parties | Alexander BOGOVICH, Plaintiff-Appellee. v. Stanley SCHERMER, Leo Schermer and Avery Schermer, Doing Business as Schermer Brothers, a Partnership, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Walker & Williams, East St. Louis, for appellants.
Moran & Beatty, Granite City, for appellee.
Plaintiff sustained a broken leg when he slipped and fell while assisting in carrying a cash register from defendants' burning building in the early morning of March 8, 1956. He instituted this suit which resulted in verdict and judgment against the defendants. After denial of post trial motion this appeal followed. Defendants raise only two questions: One, that there was no evidence to sustain the verdict; and two, that the verdict is against the manifest weight of evidence.
Defendants are brothers and own and operate a grocery store on the southwest corner of Madison Avenue and 12th Street in the city of Madison, Illinois. In the corner of the intersection they had a garden shop which was rectangular in shape and the store proper was in the form of an 'L' around this shop. Between the garden and store proper was a concrete walk about 8 feet wide over which, except the east 3 feet, extended a canopy attached to the building. A narrow walk ran from 12th Street south through the garden. The main entrance and exit doors to the store were south of the garden shop and covered by the canopy.
Immediately west of the store was a brick building used as a cooler. West of this was a wooden shed extending to the alley on the west side of the premises. There was a vacant area and to the north was a round metal incinerator about five feet across and six feet high.
On the night in question defendants' employees had left the incinerator full of paper, and boxes, crates and other debris on the ground between the incinerator and shed. The temperature was between ten and fifteen degrees above zero and a brisk wind blew out of the west or northwest.
Plaintiff operated a tavern on the northwest corner of Madison Avenue and 12th Street directly north of defendants' grocery store. He was at his tavern about 3:00 a. m. when a truck driver stopped and told him of the fire. He then saw fire in the incinerator shooting flames six or eight feet high in the air. His wife called the fire department. Plaintiff testified that papers, boxes, crates and litter between the incinerator and shed were also on fire. The fire department arrived and worked on putting out the fire but the heavy winds prevented their effectiveness and the fire spread eventually to all defendants' buildings. Much water was used and in the wind it was caused to spray and formed into ice.
Defendant Leo Schermer had been to his store that night about 11:00 p. m. on his way home from the theater and at that time there was no fire in the incinerator. Police Sergeant Pazia passed the store about 2:00 a. m. and saw fire in the incinerator.
Defendant Avery Schermer arrived at the fire about 4:00 a. m. At that time the fire was in the back of the building. He called his bookkeeper who came to the scene and they both carried the records out to her auto. During this period he slipped and fell on the ice on the sidewalk along Madison Avenue. About 4:30 a. m. he went to plaintiff's tavern, across the street, to seek help in getting the cash registers out of the defendants' building. This defendant testified that he entered the tavern and said 'Is there anybody here that can help me take the cash registers out?' Plaintiff testified this defendant said, 'Al, would you and some of your fellows help me carry out some cash registers?' Plaintiff put on his coat and he and the witness Reishe went to defendants' store with Avery Schermer. They walked through water under the canopy through the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Figueroa v. Evangelical Covenant Church
...12, 242 N.E.2d 436 (2d Dist.1968); Drews v. Mason, 29 Ill.App.2d 269, 172 N.E.2d 383 (3d Dist.1961); Bogovich v. Schermer, 16 Ill.App.2d 197, 147 N.E.2d 711 (4th Dist.1958). Although parking for Center customers was clearly not "connected with" North Park's business, it is not entirely obvi......
-
Madrazo v. Michaels
...appellate court in 1968; Drews v. Mason, 29 Ill.App.2d 269, 172 N.E.2d 383, decided by the third district in 1961; Bogovich v. Schermer, 16 Ill.App.2d 197, 147 N.E.2d 711 and Hamilton v. Faulkner, 80 Ill.App.2d 159, 224 N.E.2d 304, decided by the fourth district in 1958 and 1967, respective......
-
Bridgewater v. Wagoner
...opposite conclusion to that reached by the jury is not clearly evident, the jury's verdict should not be disturbed, Bogovich v. Schermer, 16 Ill.App.2d 197, 147 N.E.2d 711, and some courts have even stated that the necessity of an opposite conclusion must appear from the evidence, DeLong v.......
-
Shannon v. High-Low Foods, 12340.
... ... In Bogovich v. Shermer, 1958, 16 Ill. App.2d 197, 147 N.E.2d 711, defendant himself had slipped on icy pavement leading from his store when he asked for help in ... ...