Luckowitz v. Eagle Brewing Co.

• Decision Date: 18 June 1908
• Citation: 85 N.E. 213,235 Ill. 246
• Parties: LUCKOWITZ v. EAGLE BREWING CO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

235 Ill. 246

85 N.E. 213

LUCKOWITZ

v.EAGLE BREWING CO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 18, 1908.

Error to Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; R. W. Wright, Judge.

Action by John J. Luckowitz against the Eagle Brewing Company. There was a judgment of the Appellate Court reversing without remanding a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and he brings error. Affirmed.

Darrow, Masters & Wilson (Edgar L. Masters, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

O. W. Dynes, for defendant in error.

DUNN, J.

The plaintiff in error began an action on the case in the superior court of Cook county to recover for personal injuries. A judgment was rendered against the defendant in error, which, upon appeal, was reversed without remanding by the Appellate Court for the First District, with a finding of fact that the defendant in error was not guilty of the negligence charged in the declaration. To reverse this judgment a writ of error has been prosecuted from this court.

No question is raised as to the admission or exclusion of evidence or the instructions of the court, but the plaintiff in error insists that there is no evidence in the record to sustain the finding of the Appellate Court that the defendant in error was not guilty of the negligence charged in the declaration. There were four counts in the declaration. The first one charged that the defendant carelessly and negligently failed to keep, maintain, and provide a reasonably safe place for the plaintiff to work; but, on the other hand, ordered him to work about a gas stove and within a vat which were in an unsafe, dangerous, and defective condition, whereby gas was permitted to escape from the stove and accumulate in the vat, which fact was not known to the plaintiff, but was known to the defendant, or should have been known. The second count charged that the gas stove and its appliances were unsafe and unsuitable, by reason whereof gas escaped into the vat, and that the plaintiff was directed to work with and about said gas stove and its appliances, not knowing its dangerous condition. The third count charged that the plaintiff's duties had no relation to the use of the gas stove and its appliances, and that he knew nothing about them, and was ordered by the defendant to light and operate said gas stove without being instructed and warned of the attendant dangers. The fourth count charged negligencein not providing the plaintiff with a reasonably safe place in...