Daegling v. Gilmore

• Citation: 1868 WL 5214,49 Ill. 248
• Parties: CHARLES DAEGLINGv.THOMAS E. GILMORE.
• Decision Date: 30 September 1868
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

49 Ill. 248

1868 WL 5214 (Ill.)

CHARLES DAEGLING

v.THOMAS E. GILMORE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1868.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Chicago.

The opinion states the case.

Messrs. HERVEY, ANTHONY & GALT, for the appellant.

Messrs. GARRISON & BLANCHARD, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action on the case, brought by appellee, in the Superior Court of Chicago, against appellant, who was employed by one Schwartz, to erect the walls of a brick building, near the premises of appellee. There was a contract to perform the wood work, and another to do the gas work and plumbing. It was all to be done according to plans and specifications furnished by one Bauer, an architect, and who was, under the agreement of the parties, the superintendent of the work. The building, while in the process of erection, and before it was roofed, was blown down, and fell upon appellee's house and crushed it, destroying his household property, killing his wife and child, and injuring himself and niece, and he claims that he lost a considerable sum in money and government bonds. For these injuries he claims the right to recover damages in this action against appellant. A trial was had in the court below, and the jury found a verdict in his favor for $3,031. A motion for a new trial was entered, which the court overruled and rendered judgment on the verdict. The case is brought to this court on appeal, and a reversal is asked on the grounds of a misdirection of the jury by the court, and because the verdict was against the evidence and the instructions which were given.

It is urged, that appellant was not liable for inherent defects in the plan of the building furnished by the architect. In this, as in all other actions, a recovery can not be had except for some neglect or violation of duty imposed by the law. As a general rule, one person is not responsible for the acts or omissions of another. It is, however, true, that there are certain relations, which, when they exist between parties, render one person liable for the acts or defaults of others, as in case of master and servant, and principal and agent, and in some other cases, where the doctrine of respondeat superior is applied. But in this case none of these relations appear to have existed. Appellant was the contractor to perform the work, under the direction of the architect as the agent of the owner of the lot; and hence, appellant can not, by any known rule of law, be rendered...