Wicks v. Cuneo-Henneberry Co.
| Decision Date | 03 February 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 16607.,16607. |
| Parties | WICKS v. CUNEO-HENNEBERRY CO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Third Branch Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; Joseph Sabath, Judge.
Action by Harriet Wicks against the Cuneo-Henneberry Company. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Appellate Court (234 Ill. App. 502), and defendant brings error.
Judgment affirmed.Gallagher, Kohlsaat, Rinaker & Wilkinson, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Ernest W. Clark, of Chicago, for defendant in error.
The Appellate Court for the First District has affirmed a judgment for $3,000 in favor of defendant in error against plaintiff in error, and this court has allowed a petition for writ of certiorari to review questions of law arising on the record.
The declaration charged that plaintiff in error was in control of a certain building located at the intersection of West Twenty-Second street and South Grove avenue, Chicago, that it maintained in the public sidewalk in South Grove avenue two iron doors which were warped and out of repair, and that defendant in error, while in the exercise of due care for her own safety, tripped against the corner of one of said doors and was thrown upon the sidewalk and injured. Plaintiff in error filed three pleas to the declaration: A general plea of not guilty, a special plea denying that it was in control of the doors in the sidewalk, and a special plea that, defendant in error being employed in its printing and book-binding establishment, and the injury having arisen in the course of and out of the employment, her right to maintain this common-law action is barred by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1925, c. 48, §§ 138-172).
About 8 o'clock a. m., February 2, 1922, defendant in error, while on her way to work in the plant of plaintiff in error, tripped against the corner of one of the iron doors maintained in the public sidewalk in south Grove avenue by plaintiff in error, and was thrown to the sidewalk, seriously injuring the index and middle fingers of her right hand. The iron doors in the sidewalk were about 25 feet from the employees' entrance to the building, and an outer corner of one of the doors was so bent that one using the sidewalk could put his toe under the corner. The Appellate Court having concurred in the finding of the jury that the accident was the result of the negligence of plaintiff in error and not of the negligence of defendant in error, and there being legal evidence in the record supporting these findings, these questions of fact are not open for review in this court.
[1] During the redirect examination of defendant in error, her counsel was undertaking to show by her the condition of the sidewalk in the proximity of these doors during the two weeks prior to the accident, and thecourt sustained an objection to his question. Thereupon the following took place:
‘The Court: I do not understand that to be the defense.
‘Mr. Clark: Beg pardon?
‘The Court: That is not the defense.
‘Mr. Clark: Well, I don't know what their line of questioning was for, if that is not what is going to be insisted.
‘Mr.Rinaker: I move thejury be instructed to disregard the conversation between counsel and court.
‘The Court: Yes.
‘Mr. Clark: That is entirely satisfactory.
Plaintiff in error contends that the court by its remark withdrew from the jury its defense that the accident was the result of the negligence of defendant in error, and that the only way to correct the effect of the remark is to grant a new trial. We do not concur in this view. The ruling of the court on the objection was favorable to plaintiff in error. The latter proceeded without objection and submitted to the jury all the questions presented by the pleadings and the evidence, including the question of contributory negligence. It is inconceivable that the jury could have been misled by the remark of the court,when the error was so promptly and effectively corrected on the suggestion of counsel for plaintiff in error.
[2][3] During the examination of Dr. C. B. King, defendant in error offered in evidence two skiagraphs. When the first one was offered:there was an objection that it was not properly identified. Dr. King had testified that he was present when the exposure was present when the exposure was made, and that he waited while the plate was taken into the dark room and developed; that he examined the plate, and is positive that it is the skiagraph taken of the hand of defendant in error. It was sufficiently identified, and the objection was properly overruled. When the second skiagraph was offered in evidence there was an objection that a proper foundation had not been laid for its admission, for the reason that the witness did not develop the plate nor did he see it developed, nor could he testify that it was an accurate portrayal of the condition of the bones of the hand. This objection should have been sustained. Stevens v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 306 Ill. 370, 137 N.E. 859. The error in admitting it, however, was not prejudicial, for the reason that the doctor testified that the condition shown by this skiagraph is the same as that shown by the other. Futhermore, the doctor testified fully concerning the condition of the injured hand, and there was no contention on the trial that the condition described by him does not exist nor that the skiagraphs show a condition different from that described by him.
[4][5] The fourth instruction, given on behalf of defendant in error regarding the measure of damages, included, among the elements, “her reasonable physicians' bills necessarily incurred, if any.” Dr. George G. O'Connell treated defendant in error two or three times a week during the first month after the accident and occasionally thereafter. He testified that he made a charge for his services, and that he had been paid, but he did not give the amount of his charge, nor was there any proof that it was a usual and customary charge. Dr. King testified that he saw defendant in error on three occasions; that on the third occasion he made an examination of the hand with and without the use of the X-ray; that he was paid $3 for the first visit; and that he had not been paid for the other visits, but expected to be. Plaintiff in error asked the court to instruct the jury that no recovery be allowed for medical and surgical treatment for the reason that there was no evidence of a specific amount which defendant in error...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leilich v. Chevrolet Motor Co.
... ... 131; Orsini v. Torrance, 113 A. 924; Clark v ... Vorhees, 231 N.Y. 14, 131 N.E. 553; Ex parte Taylor, 213 ... Ala. 282, 104 So. 527; Wicks v. Cuneo-Henneberry, ... 319 Ill. 344, 150 N.E. 276. (5) A finding that an injury ... occurred in the course of the employment raises no ... ...
-
Hulke v. International Mfg. Co.
...evidentiary facts are never proper, even though ultimate facts may be deduced therefrom by reason or argument. Wicks v. Cuneo-Henneberry Co., 319 Ill. 344, 349, 350, 150 N.E. 276; King v. Ryman, 5 Ill.App.2d 484, 125 N.E.2d 840; Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Dunleavy, 129 Ill. 132, 141, 148, 2......
-
Arthur v. Catour
...of that nature. See North Chicago Street Ry. Co. v. Cotton, 140 Ill. 486, 498, 29 N.E. 899, 902 (1892); Wicks v. Cuneo-Henneberry Co., 319 Ill. 344, 349, 150 N.E. 276, 279 (1925). When evidence is admitted, through testimony or otherwise, that a medical bill was for treatment rendered and t......
-
Leilich v. Chevrolet Motor Co.
...v. Torrance, 113 Atl. 924; Clark v. Vorhees, 231 N.Y. 14, 131 N.E. 553; Ex parte Taylor, 213 Ala. 282, 104 So. 527; Wicks v. Cuneo-Henneberry, 319 Ill. 344, 150 N.E. 276. (5) A finding that an injury occurred in the course of the employment raises no presumption that it arose out of the emp......