Iron-Works v. Weber

• Decision Date: 17 June 1889
• Citation: 129 Ill. 535,21 N.E. 1078
• Parties: TUDOR IRON-WORKS v. WEBER.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

129 Ill. 535

21 N.E. 1078

TUDOR IRON-WORKS

v.WEBER.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 17, 1889.

Appeal from appellate court, Fourth district.

Trespass on the case by Robert Weber against the Tudor Iron-Works, a corporation, for injuries sustained by plaintiff through defendant's negligence. The action was brought in the circuit court of St. Clair county, where judgment was rendered for plaintiff for $2,000. This judgment was affirmed by the appellate court, and defendant appeals.

Marshall W. Weir, for appellant.

W. S. Hay, for appellee.

CRAIG, C. J.

This was an action to recover damages for personal injuries received by the plaintiff while oiling certain journals in the defendant's iron-works. The declaration contained four counts. The first is substantially as follows: First count alleges that on the 8th of December, 1886, plaintiff was working as a laborer in defendant's mill, under the superintendence of Niemeyer, the foreman; that it was the duty of defendant to furnish safe machinery, yet it did not regard its duty in that behalf, or use due care, but, on the contrary, so carelessly, negligently, and unskillfully constructed and repaired a certain coupling on a certain piece of shafting that the coupling was left in an unsafe and dangerous condition; that defendant knew, or might have known by proper care, of such unsafe and dangerous coupling; that plaintiff did not know thereof; that Niemeyer ordered plaintiff to oil certain journals on said piece of shafting, without warning him of the unsafe coupling; and, while oiling near said coupling, had his clothes caught, etc. The other counts do not differ materially from the first. On the trial in the circuit court the plaintiff, on his examination in chief, testified that he did not have much experience in machinery, and upon cross-examination the following questions were asked the witness: ‘What was the nature of your employment during the three or four years you worked for them,-what did you do for the company while you were working for them? Now, what was the nature of the work that you were employed at during those three or four years that you worked for the company prior to 1886? I will ask you if you did not, while you were at work at the shears, also do the oiling of the machinery? I will ask you whether you did not, while you were shearman, do oiling? Did you not during the time you worked for the company, prior to the year 1886, oil shafting or journals for a considerable time? Did you not for a considerable time-some months say-prior to 1886, oil these same journals that you oiled at the time of the accident?’ But, upon objection being made, the court ruled that the witness need not answer the questions.

We think the ruling of the circuit court was erroneous. The witness had testified in chief on this point, and the defendant had the right, if he saw proper, to go into the subject fully on cross-examination. Greenleaf, (1 Ev. § 446,) in speaking upon this subject, says: ‘By means of it [cross-examination] the situation of the witness with respect to the parties and to the subject of litigation, his interest, his motives, his inclination and prejudices, his means of obtaining a correct and certain knowledge of the facts to which he bears testimony, the manner in which he has used the means, his powers of discernment, memory and description, are all fully investigated and ascertained and submitted to the consideration of the jury.’ But while we think the questions were proper, and the court should have required the witness to answer them, upon looking into the record we find that other questions substantially like those objected to were asked and answered. We find the following: ‘Now, I will ask you to state how long you had worked for the company...