Richardson v. Cooper

• Decision Date: 31 January 1878
• Citation: 1878 WL 9862,88 Ill. 270
• Parties: WILLIAM D. RICHARDSONv.JOHN COOPER.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

88 Ill. 270

1878 WL 9862 (Ill.)

WILLIAM D. RICHARDSON

v.JOHN COOPER.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1878.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. CHARLES S. ZANE, Judge, presiding.

Mr. JOHN M. & JOHN MAYO PALMER, for the appellant.

Mr. N. M. BROADWELL, for the appellee. Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

Whilst engaged, with another person, in using a machine in elevating a stone on the walls of the State house, appellee was injured by some part of the machine becoming disconnected. His arm was injured, and for that he sued appellant, who was the contractor on the building. The action was case, and on a trial the jury found a verdict for plaintiff, and assessed his damages at $1000. A motion for a new trial was overruled by the court, and a judgment rendered on the verdict, from which defendant appeals.

Appellee was employed for the performance of no specific character of work, but did various kinds, as occasion required. Appellant was the contractor, and acted, in person, as the general superintendent of the building, and was at the building and had charge, in person, of the stone work at the time the accident occurred. The machine with which the stone was being hoisted appears to have been of sufficient material, properly constructed, and, at least, reasonably well adapted to the use for which it was designed; but, a short time previous to the accident, the men engaged in operating the machine discovered that it was not in order, and was not working properly, and had Cross, who had charge of the putting in place the iron work at a distant part of the building, to examine it. Appellee and the man engaged with him in operating the machine testify that Cross told them it was unsafe, but there was not time to fix it until after six o'clock, and to continue to use it, which they did, and appellee was injured whilst raising the next stone.

Appellee testifies that he knew the machine, in the condition it then was, was out of order and unsafe, but he continued to work with it, because Cross so directed him; but had he known the extent of the danger, he would not have done so, but it proved to be more dangerous than he supposed. He also testifies that appellant did not know the machine was out of order; that he was not there until after the accident, and kept appellee on the pay-roll of the hands for five or six months after he was injured, at $25 per month, and paid the surgeon's bill of $100.

Cross testified that he examined the machine, and regarded it safe--saw nothing wrong about it; that, with careful use, it was, he thought, not dangerous; that he was not superintendent of the work, but only acted as such in the absence of appellant, and that appellant was present that day, and superintending in person, and in this witness is sustained by other persons-- that he only acted as superintendent in the absence of appellant; did not hire or discharge hands, and was that day engaged, at the opposite end of the building, in putting up iron roofing; that appellant, in person, had charge of the stone work on which appellee was employed.

The rule is well recognized, that the employer is only liable where he fails to...