Senstock v. Tailors

Appellate Court of Illinois

Senstock v. Tailors

187 Ill. App. 69

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMay 20, 1914

DocketGen. No. 18,939

StatusPublished

This text of 187 Ill. App. 69 (Senstock v. Tailors) 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

Senstock v. Tailors, 187 Ill. App. 69 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. Masteb amd sebvant, § 128*—when servant’s recovery for injuries resulting from want of glass in entrance door not sustained try evidence. In an action hy plaintiff against her employer for personal injuries resulting from want of a glass in a door, at the entrance to the building where plaintiff in attempting to pass out on her way home from work placed her hand on the frame of the door and in.exerting pressure to prevent it from closing and to open it her hand slipped and she fell through the opening, held that a verdict for plaintiff was not sustained by the evidence, it appearing the absence of the glass was.so obviously apparent that her failure to observe the condition of the door could only be attributed to heedlessness on her part.

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

Mr. Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. Masteb amd sebvant, § 128*—when servant’s recovery for injuries resulting from want of glass in entrance door not sustained try evidence. In an action hy plaintiff against her employer for personal injuries resulting from want of a glass in a door, at the entrance to the building where plaintiff in attempting to pass out on her way home from work placed her hand on the frame of the door and in.exerting pressure to prevent it from closing and to open it her hand slipped and she fell through the opening, held that a verdict for plaintiff was not sustained by the evidence, it appearing the absence of the glass was.so obviously apparent that her failure to observe the condition of the door could only be attributed to heedlessness on her part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 Ill. App. 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/senstock-v-tailors-illappct-1914.