Crawford v. Orner & Shayne, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 June 1947 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 43949. |
| Citation | 73 N.E.2d 615,331 Ill.App. 568 |
| Parties | CRAWFORD v. ORNER & SHAYNE, Inc., et al. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Thomas J. Courtney, Judge.
Action by Jacqueline Crawford, a minor, by Stafford J. Crawford, her next friend, against Orner & Shayne, Inc., a corporation, and another, to recover damages for personal injuries. Judgment for defendants, and the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.Henry Mitgang, of Chicago (Arthur A. Wolfinsohn and C. Jerome Bishop, both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
Kirkland, Fleming, Green, Martin & Ellis, of Chicago (William H. Symmes, David Jacker, and John M. O'Connor, Jr., all of Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.
In her second amended complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Jacqueline Crawford, a minor by her next friend, alleged that Orner & Shayne, Inc., and William F. Forbrich, were the owners and operators of the apartment building at 366 East 53rd Street, Chicago; that the building was equipped with windows and window screens; that the screens were seasonably removed and replaced by the defendants through their agents; that in September, 1940, the defendants removed the screens from the windows in the apartment where plaintiff lived with her parents; that the screens were marked and identified so that they could be replaced the following year; that in May, 1941, defendants replaced the screen in the dining room window of the apartment with a screen that was loose, defective and which did not fit properly; that plaintiff's parents notified the defendants and their agents that the screen was loose, defective and dangerous and that it did not fit properly; that plaintiff, who was three years of age, might fall out of the window if she should lean thereon; that defendants and their agents agreed to replace or repair the defective screen; that it was the duty of defendants to exercise due care and caution in the management, operation and maintenance of the building and the screens; and that defendants were bound to exercise care and caution in the installation of the screens so that there were no defects which were known or could have been known by defendants. Defendants were also charged with divers acts of negligence, including the construction and installation of the screen that did not fit, and the failure to carry out their agreement with the parents of plaintiff to provide a safe screen, as a result of which plaintiff sustained fractures of her skull and other injuries of a permanent and lasting nature. She asked damages of $25,000. Defendants denied the allegations of the amended complaint. Shortly before the trial, however, they admitted the ownership and operation of the premises. The answer further alleged a written lease for the premises between plaintiff's father and William F. Forbrich, one of the defendants. On a trial before the court and a jury, the court, at the close of plaintiff's case, directed a verdict for the defendants and entered judgment against plaintiff. The latter moved to vacate the judgment and for a new trial, which motions were denied. This appeal followed.
The parents of plaintiff were tenants, having moved into the third apartment in the premises in May, 1935. It is a court building on the north side of 53rd Street, the front facing south and the rear to the north. The Crawfords occupied a four room apartment consisting of a bedroom, living room, dining room and kitchen. The windows in the dining room face north. There are three windows in the dining room, a large window in the center and a small window on either side. The distance between the floor of the apartment and the window sill of these windows is 23 1/2 inches. Jacqueline was injured on Sunday, June 29, 1941, when she and the window screen fell out of the third floor window of the dining room. Henry Hendricks testified that on the afternoon of the occurrence he had taken his car out of a garage in the alley near the back of defendants' building. Children were playing in a play lot at the rear of the apartment building. As he stopped to talk to one of the boys, he saw a little girl, the plaintiff, in a third floor window above the play yard, sitting on the window sill. At that time he also saw two other children sitting on a window sill in the same building. He testified further that he saw plaintiff's hand move and the screen came down; that the screen fell to the ground on the concrete; and that plaintiff fell to the ground right behind the screen.
The mother of plaintiff testified that the afternoon was ‘very hot’; that she had put her daughter to bed for an afternoon nap; that she, witness, took up the newspaper to read; that she dropped off to sleep; that the windows in the dining room were open; that the screens were in; that ‘the next thing that happened’ a little boy was knocking on her door to tell her that her daughter and been injured; and that she then saw that the window screen was out of the window. She testified further that ‘they’ customarily reported any necessary repairs to be made to the janitor; that after it became warm she noticed that one of the screens that had been put in was tilted and was crooked in the window; that she then stopped at the janitor's apartment and told him that this screen in the dining room had something wrong with it and did not fit and was advised by the janitor that he would come up and look at it; and that prior to the occurrence the janitor came up to the apartment and straightened the screen out in the window. Plaintiff's father testified that at the time of the mishap he was at work; that in the latter part of May he had examined the window screen in the dining room and found it to be too narrow for the window; that he then reported to the janitor about the screen being too narrow for the window; that about the first of June, 1941, while paying his rent at the office of the defendant corporation, he had a conversation with a lady in the cashier's cage; that he told her ‘we had a defective screen in the dining room’; that she said: ‘Well, the janitor reported it and it will be taken care of’; that about a week or so before the mishap he called the janitor in to look at the screen; that the janitor looked at the screen and showed witness where it was too narrow for the window; that correct screens had always been put in the windows before that time; that the ‘wrong screen’ had been put in the window this time; and that the screens were always marked.
Before the close of the case plaintiff made the following offer of proof:
The court sustained defendants' objection to the offer of proof. The court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lamkin v. Towner
...353, 110 N.E.2d 643 (landlord had no duty to provide screens which a child could not push out or dislodge); Crawford v. Orner & Shayne, Inc. (1947), 331 Ill.App. 568, 73 N.E.2d 615 (no duty on the part of landlords to maintain a window screen sufficient to support the weight of a minor lean......
-
Lamkin v. Towner
...is not required or intended to keep persons from falling out of the window in which is it placed. [sic] Crawford v. Orner & Shayne [Inc. (1947) ], 331 Ill.App. 568, 73 N.E.2d 615, Gasquoine v. Bornstein [ (1956) ], 10 Ill.App. d 423, 135 N.E.2d 4. That the foregoing rule of law clearly esta......
-
Laster v. Chicago Housing Authority
...make them "safe against the possibility of children falling out of the windows" and cited in support Crawford v. Orner and Shayne, Inc. (1947), 331 Ill.App. 568, 73 N.E.2d 615; Rogers v. Sins (1953), 349 Ill.App. 353, 110 N.E.2d 643; Gasquoine v. Bornstein (1956), 10 Ill.App.2d 423, 135 N.E......
-
Lamkin v. Towner
...Bornstein (1956), 10 Ill.App.2d 423, 135 N.E.2d 121; Rogers v. Sins (1953), 349 Ill.App. 353, 110 N.E.2d 643; Crawford v. Orner & Shayne, Inc. (1947), 331 Ill.App. 568, 73 N.E. 615.) Plaintiffs respond that defendants' proposition that screens serve the sole purpose of keeping insects out a......