Gundlach v. Schott
| Decision Date | 24 October 1901 |
| Parties | GUNDLACH et al. v. SCHOTT. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from appellate court, Fourth district.
Action for injuries by Edward Schott against B. A. Gundlach and others. From a judgment of the appellate court (95 Ill. App. 110) affirming the judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.Webb & Webb and G. A. Koerner, for appellants.
Wise & McNulty and Winkleman & Baer, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the appellate court for the Fourth district affirming a judgment rendered in an action on the case for a personal injury in the circuit court of St. Clair county in favor of appellee for $7,000, against appellants. The declaration contained four counts, but the cause was submitted to the jury upon the third count only; the jury having been directed, at the close of appellee's evidence, to find for appellants as to the first, second, and fourth counts. The third count charges, in substance, that on the 8th of September, 1899, appellants were owners of and conducting a foundry, where parts of machinery were manufactured, a part of the foundry appliances being a machine for polishing castings, called a ‘rattlebox’; that this rattlebox was operated by means of a leather belt running upon two pulleys; that the castings were polished by being placed in this rattlebox; that plaintiff's duty was to put the castings into the box, and remove them when finished, starting and stopping the machine by putting on and throwing off the belt; that on this date the belt had been improperly sewed together, ‘leaving a twist in the same, thereby rendering it very difficult and dangerous to adjust it on said top pulley, of all of which the defendants had full and complete notice; that defendants then and there, after having notice of the dangerous and imperfect condition of said belt, ordered, directed, and instructed plaintiff to use it in said condition, informing plaintiff that the same was safe, sufficient, and not dangerous'; that while plaintiff was, with due care on his part, and without knowledge of any danger, and in obedience to the instruction and direction of defendant, putting on the belt, his left hand and arm came in contact with the twist in the belt, ‘by means of which said negligence of the defendants in furnishing the imperfect and dangerous belt with which plaintiff was to work, and their negligence in ordering and directing plaintiff as aforesaid, he was injured,’ etc. Appellee's account of how he received the injury is abstracted by appellants' counsel from his testimony as follows:
The first assignment of error upon this appeal is that the trial court erred in refusing to give a peremptory instruction to find for the defendants, asked at the close of plaintiff's evidence, and again at the close of all the evidence. This contention is based upon the theory that plaintiff well knew the danger incident to his attempting to...
To continue reading
Request your trial