Litchfield Car & Machine Co. v. Romine

Appellate Court of Illinois

Litchfield Car & Machine Co. v. Romine

39 Ill. App. 642, 1890 Ill. App. LEXIS 538

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJune 12, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 39 Ill. App. 642 (Litchfield Car & Machine Co. v. Romine) 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

Litchfield Car & Machine Co. v. Romine, 39 Ill. App. 642, 1890 Ill. App. LEXIS 538 (Ill. Ct. App. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Wall, J,

We have examined the evidence very carefully and find it quite uncertain whether the alleged “sag” in the pipe, which is supposed to have caused the injury, was there when the pipe was first put in place, or whether it was produced afterward ; it may have been the one way or the other; but in either case, as the deceased helped and took an active part in putting up the pipe, and as he ran the engine constantly from that time up to the accident, a period of some two years, there is much reason to say that he was chargeable with notice of it and should have called the attention of the employer to it if he considered it unsafe.

No one had a better opportunity than he to know how it was and if he knew and made no complaint he assumed whatever of hazard and risk it involved. It was, therefore, error to give the fourth instruction asked by plaintiff, which must have had a controlling effect upon the jury, and for the same reason it was error to refuse the nineteenth and twentieth asked by defendant. .The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed <md remanded.

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

Wall, J,

We have examined the evidence very carefully and find it quite uncertain whether the alleged “sag” in the pipe, which is supposed to have caused the injury, was there when the pipe was first put in place, or whether it was produced afterward ; it may have been the one way or the other; but in either case, as the deceased helped and took an active part in putting up the pipe, and as he ran the engine constantly from that time up to the accident, a period of some two years, there is much reason to say that he was chargeable with notice of it and should have called the attention of the employer to it if he considered it unsafe.

No one had a better opportunity than he to know how it was and if he knew and made no complaint he assumed whatever of hazard and risk it involved. It was, therefore, error to give the fourth instruction asked by plaintiff, which must have had a controlling effect upon the jury, and for the same reason it was error to refuse the nineteenth and twentieth asked by defendant. .The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed <md remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 Ill. App. 642, 1890 Ill. App. LEXIS 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/litchfield-car-machine-co-v-romine-illappct-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack