Springer v. Schultz

• Decision Date: 26 October 1903
• Citation: 205 Ill. 144,68 N.E. 753
• Parties: SPRINGER v. SCHULTZ.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

205 Ill. 144

68 N.E. 753

SPRINGER

v.SCHULTZ. ^*

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 26, 1903.

Appeal from Appellate Court, First District.

Action by Fred Schultz against Warren Springer. From a judgment of the Appellate Court (105 Ill. App. 544) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

O. W. Dynes, for appellant.

Francis J. Woolley, for appellee.

WILKIN, J.

This action was begun by Fred Schultz, who is appellee here, against Warren Springer, appellant, in the superior court of Cook county, to recover for an injury received by the fall of a passenger elevator in a six-story building owned by appellant, in the city of Chicago. The declaration consists of a single count, the material allegation charging, in substance, that the defendant negligently and knowingly suffered the machinery connected with the elevator to be and remain in bad repair, and by his servant so negligently operated the same that it fell, by means of which the plaintiff was greatly injured and ‘suffered great pain, and will hereafter suffer great pain for the term of his life,’ etc.

From the evidence it appeared that appellee, on the 24th day of October, 1899, was working for one of the tenants in that building, and while he was riding down on the elevator as a passenger, the car became disconnected from the cable supporting it and dropped six stories, to the basement. The appellee was seriously bruised on the head and back, and the evidence showed that the spine, brain, and eyes had suffered material and more or less permanent injury.

The jury found the defendant guilty as charged in the declaration, and rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for $25,000 damages. Upon appeal to the Appellate Court by the defendant the judgment below was affirmed, but upon condition that the amount be reduced, by remittitur, to $15,000, which remittitur was duly entered by the plaintiff.

Upon this further appeal to reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court, it is insisted, first, that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence. In support of the motion for new trial three affidavits were filed by appellant, setting up facts which counsel claim would upon a new trial produce a different verdict. It is clear from all the evidence the defect in the machinery which was the primary cause of the accident was immediately above the car. At the top of the elevator, passing through a heavy cross-beam, was a shackle bolt, the upper end or head of which was fan-shaped, containing four holes, through which the cables passed to support the elevator. On the lower end of this shackle bolt was screwed a large nut, which held it in place. The nut had become unscrewed until it held by the last thread. At the time of the accident the weight of the elevator and the passengers therein was too heavy to be supported by the bottom thread on the shackle bolt, and the nut pulled off, letting the elevator drop. The newly discovered evidence, as set forth in the motion for a new trial, was to the effect that one Ellis, the elevator operator, in conjunction with appellee, were...