Probst Constr. Co. of Chicago v. Foley

• Decision Date: 03 April 1897
• Citation: 46 N.E. 750,166 Ill. 31
• Parties: PROBST CONSTRUCTION CO. OF CHICAGO v. FOLEY.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

166 Ill. 31

46 N.E. 750

PROBST CONSTRUCTION CO. OF CHICAGO

v.FOLEY.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 3, 1897.

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

Action by Maurice Foley against the Probst Construction Company of Chicago to recover for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff, which was affirmed by the appellate court (63 Ill. App. 494), and defendant appeals. Affirmed.Keep & Cross, for appellant.

Wilcox & Gettys and Brandt & Hoffman, for appellee.

This is an action on the case, brought in the circuit court of Cook county by appellee, against appellant, to recover damages for personal injuries. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee for $5,000. Said judgment was affirmed by the appellate court. The appellant was in the contracting and construction business, and had charge of the erection of the Schiller Theater Building, at 103 Randolph street, in the city of Chicago. Appellee was in its employ as a common laborer, and on May 20, 1892, was injured by falling through the roof of the building, then in course of construction, and down to the next floor below. At the time the accident happened, appellee was wheeling concrete on the roof. This material was mixed in the basement, and placed in barrows, which were brought up on an elevator to the roof. There was a runway, constructed of two-inch planks, extending from the elevator diagonally across the roof, and it was the duty of appellee to wheel the barrows over this runway and dump the same, to be spread by other parties as a top dressing. In constructing the roof, iron beams, 6 inches deep, and weighing 18 pounds to the lineal foot, were placed in position. The distance between these Ibeams was 6 feet 6 inches from center to center. The space between the beams was filled in with cement, which was placed in position as follows: Wooden molds, called ‘centers,’ were put between the beams, resting upon the bottom flanges of the beams. These centers were arch-shaped, the upper surface being convex. after the centers were placed in position, the whole space between the beams, above the mold, was filled in with cement, the upper surface of which was made level, and nearly even with the tops of the beams, and on this, after it became dry, was placed a top dressing which made the top of the roof level and smooth. After the molds were removed from beneath, the under side, between each pair of beams, would be a cement arch, running the whole length of the beams. These molds were placed there to give the cement the arch shape on the under side, and, after the cement was put in, they were left in position several days, until the cement hardened enough to remain set; then they were removed to allow the water to drain out of the cement, and to allow the air to get at the under side, so as to dry the arch. The declaration consists of two counts. In the first it is charged that the defendant ‘negligently and carelessly failed to provide proper supports to sustain said roof, and, while this plaintiff was upon said roof as aforesaid, and in the exercise of due care on his...