Kane v. W. M. Hoyt Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Kane v. W. M. Hoyt Co.

182 Ill. App. 371

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 14, 1913

DocketGen. No. 17,901

StatusPublished

This text of 182 Ill. App. 371 (Kane v. W. M. Hoyt Co.) 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

Kane v. W. M. Hoyt Co., 182 Ill. App. 371 (Ill. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Master and servant, § 164*—where master is not negligent. Where a plaintiff was injured by the fall of a freight elevator which he was operating, due to the breaking of a pinion, held that a verdict for such plaintiff was against the manifest weight of evidence, since it did not appear that the defendant was negligent in inspecting such elevator, or that an old break in such pinion, if it existed, could have been discovered by careful inspection. 2. Trial, § 40*—when jurors may examine injured person. Where a person injured suffered from a comminuted fracture of the kneecap, and the character and extent of such injury was a subject for expert testimony, it was error to permit some of the jurors to examine such injury to determine its extent.

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

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Master and servant, § 164*—where master is not negligent. Where a plaintiff was injured by the fall of a freight elevator which he was operating, due to the breaking of a pinion, held that a verdict for such plaintiff was against the manifest weight of evidence, since it did not appear that the defendant was negligent in inspecting such elevator, or that an old break in such pinion, if it existed, could have been discovered by careful inspection. 2. Trial, § 40*—when jurors may examine injured person. Where a person injured suffered from a comminuted fracture of the kneecap, and the character and extent of such injury was a subject for expert testimony, it was error to permit some of the jurors to examine such injury to determine its extent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 Ill. App. 371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kane-v-w-m-hoyt-co-illappct-1913.