Chicago Exch. Bldg. Co. v. Nelson

• Decision Date: 19 June 1902
• Citation: 64 N.E. 369,197 Ill. 334
• Parties: CHICAGO EXCH. BLDG. CO. v. NELSON.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

197 Ill. 334

64 N.E. 369

CHICAGO EXCH. BLDG. CO.

v.NELSON.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 19, 1902.

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

Action by Nels Nelson against the Chicago Exchange Building Company. From a judgment of the appellate court (98 Ill. App. 189) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Alexander Clark, for appellant.

M. V. Gilbert and Pliny B. Smith, for appellee.

This is an action on the case for personal injuries, begun in the superior court of Cook county. Upon the trial a verdict was rendered for appellee in the sum of $2,000, and judgment entered thereon. Upon appeal to the appellate court the judgment was affirmed, from which judgment this appeal is prayed.

Upon the trial below it appeared that on October 3, 1896, appellee entered the elevator of appellant, in the Chicago Stock Exchange Building, on the eighth floor, for the purpose of being transferred to the ground floor. At the time he entered the elevator he said nothing to the elevator conductor as to his destination. He admitted that he knew it was the custom when any passenger intended to get off at any intermediate floor to notify the conductor, and that, in case he did not so notify him, then the elevator conductor would be justified in believing that he intended to go to the bottom floor. When the elevator approached the second floor some one cried out ‘Down!’ and the elevator conductor brought his elevator to a stop, and threw open the door. Appellee, observing the elevator directly opposite him on the other side of the corridor standing on a level with the floor, with the door open, and people getting out, and a man in uniform similar to that of an elevator starter standing by the elevator, supposed the elevator had reached the street floor. He thereupon started to go out of the elevator, and just as he was in the doorway the elevator conductor suddenly started the elevator downward without closing the door, although he did start to close the door at about the same time he started the elevator. This door was upon the grating that inclosed the elevator shaft, and not upon the cage of the elevator. The plaintiff got both feet upon the edge of the floor of the building, but as the elevator started one foot slipped forward and extended out on the floor of the building and the other foot remained on the ledge of the floor of the building. The plaintiff, as he felt himself falling, grabbed hold of some part of the elevator cage to support himself, and as the elevator descended, the crosspiece at the top of the door in the elevator struck his leg a few inches above the knee and the compression broke the bones of his leg. Before starting to go out he did not look to see whether the door was closing or not,-he did not pay any attention. He testified, ‘When the elevator boy threw the door open to the elevator, and I thought it was the lower floor, I walked straight out without hesitation, not thinking there was any danger.’ It is contended on the part of the appellee that not only was the starting of the elevator without first closing the door negligence, but it was also negligence to start it while the appellee was in, or just entering, the door.

RICKS, J. (after stating the facts).

It is first urged by appellant that the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury to find the defendant not guilty, for the reason there was no negligence shown on the part of the defendant, and that the evidence shows conclusively that the accident was caused by the failure of the plaintiff to use due care for his own safety. Plaintiff being upon an elevator of the defendant used for the carriage of persons, the law is well settled that the defendant was bound to exercise the highest degree of care, skill, and diligence practically consistent with the efficient use and operation of the elevator for the plaintiff's safety. The testimony of appellant tended to prove that when the second floor of the building was reached the elevator was stopped, and the door leading thereto was opened by the boy in charge. Appellee, under the mistaken impression that he had arrived at the floor he desired to reach, and in conformity to the implied invitation of the open door to depart from the elevator, stepped upon the edge of the floor of the building in an attempt to alight. At that moment the boy in charge, without first closing the door, and without waiting to see if the plaintiff was about to alight, or if the lowering of the elevator, by reason of the door being open, would imperil his safety, caused the elevator to descend, by reason whereof the plaintiff's injuries...