Brophy v. Illinois Steel Co.

• Decision Date: 26 October 1909
• Citation: 89 N.E. 684,242 Ill. 55
• Parties: BROPHY v. ILLINOIS STEEL CO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

242 Ill. 55

89 N.E. 684

BROPHY

v.ILLINOIS STEEL CO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 26, 1909.

Error to Appellate Court, Second District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Will County; Dorrance Dibell, Judge.

Action by Edward Brophy, a minor, by next friend, against the Illinois Steel Company. There was a judgment of the Appellate Court (144 Ill. App. 309) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.Garnsey & Wood and William Beye (Knapp & Campbell, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

John W. D'Arcy, for defendant in error.

HAND, J.

This was an action on the case commenced by Edward Brophy, a minor, by his next friend, against the Illinois Steel Company, in the circuit court of Will county, to recover damages for a personal injury alleged to have been sustained by him while in the employ of said Illinois Steel Company. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $5,000, upon which judgment was rendered, which judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Court for the Second District upon the appeal of the defendant, and this writ of error has been sued out by it to review the judgment of the Appellate Court. At the close of all the evidence the defendant moved the court for a directed verdict in its favor, which motion was overruled, and the action of the court in overruling that motion is the only ground of reversal relied upon in this court.

The plaintiff in error has devoted a large portion of its brief to a discussion of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. This was improper, as the practice is well settled that on a motion for a directed verdict the only question preserved for review in this court is a question of law, and is: Does the evidence in favor of the plaintiff, when considered to be true, together with the inferences which may legitimately be drawn therefrom, fairly tend to support the cause of action averred in the declaration? In order to intelligently pass upon the contentions of plaintiff in error, it will be necessary to briefly state the conditions surrounding the plaintiff at the time he was injured.

The injury took place on the afternoon of September 16, 1906. The plaintiff was then about 16 years of age and had been employed for 3 or 4 months by the defendant as a switchman in its yards at its plant located at Joliet. He had, however, only worked at the place where he was injured on one occasion prior to the day he was injured. The day of the accident was Sunday, and the plant was closed with the exception that certain moulds holding molten metal, and the buggies (small cars) upon which they were transported, were being cleaned. The buggies were about 4 feet long, 3 feet wide, and 2 feet high, and the moulds were made of cast iron, and were about 2 feet square at the bottom and 6 feet high, and weighed 2,000 pounds each. Each buggy held two moulds, and three buggies constituted a train. The trains were hauled upon a narrow-gauge track by a small engine, upon which the engineer rode. Between the engine and the buggies there was a ‘push car,’ which had a steel top and contained the coupling attachment by means of which the buggies were attached to the engine. The switchman operated the switches, attached the buggies to the push car and gave signals to the engineer, by means of which the train attached to his engine was operated. The platform where the moulds were cleaned was approached by the trains upon tracks which ran upon either side thereof. Upon the trains reaching said platform they...