Sagor v. Gibson

Appellate Court of Illinois

Sagor v. Gibson

77 Ill. App. 119, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 32

DecidedJuly 21, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 77 Ill. App. 119 (Sagor v. Gibson) 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

Sagor v. Gibson, 77 Ill. App. 119, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 32 (Ill. Ct. App. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Sears

delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit was brought by defendant in error to recover for injuries sustained, as is alleged, through negligence of plaintiffs in error, and the trial resulted in verdict and judgment for $5,500 against both plaintiffs in error.

The negligence charged in each count of the declaration is the negligent building and construction of a door, which, by reason of its defective construction, fell upon defendant in error and injured her. There is no evidence proving or tending to prove that plaintiff in error Lena Sagor had anything whatever to do with the construction or building of the door in question. On the contrary, it is uncontroverted that Hoses Sagor was the owner of the building and the one who let the several contracts for its construction. The verdict, therefore, was entirely unsupported by evidence, so far as Lena Sagor is concerned, and her motion for a new trial should have been granted.

It is doubtful if a verdict for any such amount could, upon the evidence here, be sustained as against the owner of the building, for lack of a sufficiently established connection between the most serious of the injuries complained of and the alleged cause thereof, viz., the falling of the door. But the reason first noted makes another trial necessary.

The judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

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

Mr. Justice Sears

delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit was brought by defendant in error to recover for injuries sustained, as is alleged, through negligence of plaintiffs in error, and the trial resulted in verdict and judgment for $5,500 against both plaintiffs in error.

The negligence charged in each count of the declaration is the negligent building and construction of a door, which, by reason of its defective construction, fell upon defendant in error and injured her. There is no evidence proving or tending to prove that plaintiff in error Lena Sagor had anything whatever to do with the construction or building of the door in question. On the contrary, it is uncontroverted that Hoses Sagor was the owner of the building and the one who let the several contracts for its construction. The verdict, therefore, was entirely unsupported by evidence, so far as Lena Sagor is concerned, and her motion for a new trial should have been granted.

It is doubtful if a verdict for any such amount could, upon the evidence here, be sustained as against the owner of the building, for lack of a sufficiently established connection between the most serious of the injuries complained of and the alleged cause thereof, viz., the falling of the door. But the reason first noted makes another trial necessary.

The judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 Ill. App. 119, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sagor-v-gibson-illappct-1898.