Jorgenson v. Johnson Chair Co.
| Decision Date | 01 November 1897 |
| Citation | 48 N.E. 822,169 Ill. 429 |
| Parties | JORGENSON v. JOHNSON CHAIR CO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from appellate court, First district.
Action on the case by Berit Jorgenson against the Johnson Chair Company to recover for personal injuries. Defendant obtained judgment, which was affirmed by the appellate court. 67 Ill. App. 80. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Dow, Walker & Walker, for appellant.
Richolson, Matson & Drake, for appellee.
Upon the close of the plaintiff's evidence, on motion of the defendant, the court instructed the jury to find a verdict in favor of the defendant, and the correctness of this ruling of the circuit courts is the only question presented by the record. It is a familiar rule of law that, in order to recover for personal injuries resulting from negligence, it must be averred and proved that the person injured was at the time of the injury observing due and ordinary care for his or her personal safety. Now, the plaintiff was familiar with the offices she was employed to scrub, as she had performed the same labor for the defendant every two weeks for 18 months next before the accident. She was not, in the discharge of her duties, required to pass from the offices into the shipping room for any purpose whatever. Indeed, she had no business in the shipping room. This is evident from the contract of employment, which, as is disclosed by the evidence, was: ‘Defendant was to furnish plaintiff with the necessary implements or tools, such as hot water, soap, pails, and cloths to scrub and wipe up the floor.’ The watchman was there in charge of the building, ready to furnish any material needed by the plaintiff to enable her to perform her duties. This is apparent from plaintiff's own testimony. She testified: ‘The watchman carried water for us and furnished everything for us.’ From her evidence, when she needed anything, all she had to do was to call for it. Thus provided, as she was, with everything necessary to enable her to discharge her duties, she had no business to go into different parts of the building in search of material, and when she assumed that responsibility she did so at her own risk. When the plaintiff called in the watchman to bring water to be used in scrubbing the floor, he went for the water and brought it. When she needed rags to dry the floor, it was her duty to call in the watchman, but this she failed to do, and in utter disregard of her duties she left the offices where she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Menard v. Goltra
...S.W. 738, 740; Imes v. Railway, 105 Ill.App. 37; Bell, Admr., v. Railway, 197 Ill.App. 86; Railway v. Eselin, 86 Ill.App. 94; Jorgenson v. Chair Co., 169 Ill. 429. (a) The humanitarian doctrine, in such actions, does not obtain in Illinois. Bushman v. Railway, 214 Ill.App. 435; Ill. Malleab......
-
Busker v. New York Cent. R. Co.
...exercise of due care and caution under all the circumstances, and unless this is proven there can be no recovery. Jorgenson v. Johnson Chair Co., 169 Ill. 429, 48 N.E. 822; Newell v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co., 261 Ill. 505, 104 N.E. 223. We have frequently had o......
-
Winn v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co.
...in the exercise of due care under all the circumstances, and, unless this is proven, there cannot be a recovery. Jorgenson v. Johnson Chair Co., 169 Ill. 429, 48 N. E. 822. This court has repeatedly held that a traveler approaching a railroad crossing is required to use such care as a perso......
-
Walters v. City of Ottawa
...personal safety, and many cases are there cited. The same rule was again announced in Gerke v. Fancher, supra, and Jorgenson v. Johnson Chair Co., 169 Ill. 429, 48 N. E. 822. A declaration, in an action to recover for injuries received through negligence, which does not aver due care on the......