Dusch v. Travelers Salvar Corp.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Dusch v. Travelers Salvar Corp.

318 N.E.2d 714, 23 Ill. App. 3d 104, 1974 Ill. App. LEXIS 1790

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 17, 1974

DocketNo. 71-343

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 318 N.E.2d 714 (Dusch v. Travelers Salvar Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dusch v. Travelers Salvar Corp., 318 N.E.2d 714, 23 Ill. App. 3d 104, 1974 Ill. App. LEXIS 1790 (Ill. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff brought this action in two counts. The jury found for the defendant against the plaintiff on Count II, a count based on negligence. No appeal is taken from that finding. Count I was based on the Structural Work Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 48, par. 60-69). The jury rendered a verdict in the amount of $50,000 on Count I, and also answered a special interrogatory in plaintiff’s favor finding specially that defendant Edward Smith as owner of the building in question was in charge of the erection, construction, repairing, alteration, removal or painting of the building. The trial court set aside this interrogatory and entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

The issue of whether there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that the defendant Edward Smith had sufficient connection with the operation of the work to make him a person in charge within the meaning of the Structural Work Act is controlled by the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois in Carruthers v. B. C. Christopher & Co., 57 Ill.2d 376, 313 N.E.2d 457. Under tire rationale of that opinion, the trial court’s action was correct. Therefore the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

EBERSPACHER and CREBS, JJ., concur,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff brought this action in two counts. The jury found for the defendant against the plaintiff on Count II, a count based on negligence. No appeal is taken from that finding. Count I was based on the Structural Work Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 48, par. 60-69). The jury rendered a verdict in the amount of $50,000 on Count I, and also answered a special interrogatory in plaintiff’s favor finding specially that defendant Edward Smith as owner of the building in question was in charge of the erection, construction, repairing, alteration, removal or painting of the building. The trial court set aside this interrogatory and entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

The issue of whether there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that the defendant Edward Smith had sufficient connection with the operation of the work to make him a person in charge within the meaning of the Structural Work Act is controlled by the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois in Carruthers v. B. C. Christopher & Co., 57 Ill.2d 376, 313 N.E.2d 457. Under tire rationale of that opinion, the trial court’s action was correct. Therefore the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

EBERSPACHER and CREBS, JJ., concur,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

318 N.E.2d 714, 23 Ill. App. 3d 104, 1974 Ill. App. LEXIS 1790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dusch-v-travelers-salvar-corp-illappct-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack