Rohmer v. Anderson

Appellate Court of Illinois

Rohmer v. Anderson

189 Ill. App. 274

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 13, 1914

DocketGen. No. 19,961

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 189 Ill. App. 274 (Rohmer v. Anderson) 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

Rohmer v. Anderson, 189 Ill. App. 274 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.

4. Negligence, § 185*—when recovery for personal injuries resulting from, fall of frozen crust of sand pile sustained by the evidence. A verdict allowing a recovery for personal injuries alleged to have resulted from defendant’s negligence in causing a frozen crust of a sand pile to fall on plaintiff, held not against the weight of the evidence, where the jury might have justifiably believed from the evidence that plaintiff was in the exercise of due care and justifiably ignorant of the manner in which defendant was working on the other side of the pile, that defendant’s method of doing the work on his side was not a careful one, that he had reason to believe conditions were dangerous and he did not warn plaintiff, and that the work on defendant’s side caused the crust to fall on plaintiff.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.

4. Negligence, § 185*—when recovery for personal injuries resulting from, fall of frozen crust of sand pile sustained by the evidence. A verdict allowing a recovery for personal injuries alleged to have resulted from defendant’s negligence in causing a frozen crust of a sand pile to fall on plaintiff, held not against the weight of the evidence, where the jury might have justifiably believed from the evidence that plaintiff was in the exercise of due care and justifiably ignorant of the manner in which defendant was working on the other side of the pile, that defendant’s method of doing the work on his side was not a careful one, that he had reason to believe conditions were dangerous and he did not warn plaintiff, and that the work on defendant’s side caused the crust to fall on plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 Ill. App. 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rohmer-v-anderson-illappct-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack