McDermott v. Griffiths

190 Ill. App. 53, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 71
CourtAppellate Court of Illinois
DecidedDecember 21, 1914
DocketGen. No. 19,769
StatusPublished

This text of 190 Ill. App. 53 (McDermott v. Griffiths) 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
McDermott v. Griffiths, 190 Ill. App. 53, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 71 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Baker

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Negligence, § 191*—what are questions of fact. What'is reasonable care in a particular case depends on the circumstances of the case and is peculiarly a question of fact for the jury. 4. Master and servant, § 800*—when instruction as to place of worlc is erroneous. In an action for the death of an employee caused by the presence of gas in a well used in constructing a building, an instruction that the jury might find that the defendants were not guilty of negligence if they found that such defendants exercised reasonable care down to a reasonable time before the death of the employee, was erroneous. 5. Master and servant, § 800*—lohen instruction as to duty owing to servant is erroneous. In an action for the death of an employee caused by gas in a well used in constructing a building, an instruction that if the employee was ordered to work in another well, and was killed when he returned to the first well to obtain a tool that he had left therein, he was a mere volunteer or licensee, to whom defendants owed no duty except to restrain from wilfully or wantonly injuring him, was, in effect, an instruction to find the defendants not guilty, and was erroneous as deciding the issues of fact as to whether the deceased went into the well to obtain a tool, and whether such act was within his employment, as matters of law. 6. Master and servant, § 709*—what are questions of fact. Where an employee was killed by gas in a well when he returned to obtain a tool he had left therein, the questions whether he went down into the well to obtain such tool, and whether in so doing he was reasonably within the scope of his employment, should have been submitted to the jury.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
190 Ill. App. 53, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdermott-v-griffiths-illappct-1914.