{
  "id": 5173435,
  "name": "Richard Wilinski, by his father and next friend, Stanley Wilinski, Appellee, v. Belmont Builders, Inc., Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wilinski v. Belmont Builders, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1957-05-29",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 47,030",
  "first_page": "100",
  "last_page": "105",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 Ill. App. 2d 100"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "318 Ill. 142",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5150783
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "150"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/318/0142-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 N.E.2d 280",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 Ind. 160",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ind.",
      "case_ids": [
        1754436
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ind/232/0160-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "219 Ill.App. 321",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5433296
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/219/0321-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 N.E.2d 279",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Ill.App.2d 245",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5159685,
        5160589
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/11/0245-02",
        "/ill-app-2d/11/0245-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 Ill.2d 614",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2703925
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/5/0614-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 450,
    "char_count": 6959,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.543,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0918642393139616e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7604943377007695
    },
    "sha256": "09e9d04bc90e56e1552264a984ff7c1cf16802a48f2455d7febf923f664fe779",
    "simhash": "1:22014fc3f95c487e",
    "word_count": 1167
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:11:15.585812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "FEINBERGr, P. J., concurs.",
      "LEWE, J., took no part."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Richard Wilinski, by his father and next friend, Stanley Wilinski, Appellee, v. Belmont Builders, Inc., Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUDGE KILEY\ndelivered the opinion of the conrt.\nThis is an action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by a minor child. Verdict and judgment for $2,500 were in plaintiff\u2019s favor and defendant has appealed.\nRichard Wilinski, eleven years old at the time, was injured September 27,1952, when he fell from a ladder at the rear of a building under construction by, and in possession of, defendant. Wilinski was playing \u201chide and go seek\u201d with his brother and ran into the building. The building had neither doors nor windows and he entered through the front door frame. He went to the rear where a \u201chomemade\u201d ladder rested against the door frame and when he was descending the ladder a rung broke and he fell to the ground and was injured.\nDefendant contends that the court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict. It claims that there is no proof that the building was defective or that defendant owned or possessed the ladder. This claim presupposes the judgment must rest upon the \u201cattractive nuisance\u201d theory, and is addressed to the absence of proof of defendant\u2019s ownership of the ladder and to plaintiff\u2019s testimony that the ladder could not be seen from the street. Defendant also refers us to cases from foreign jurisdictions in support of its theory that neither the ladder nor \u201cbuilding under construction\u201d comes within the attractive nuisance rule.\nWe think these claims are disposed of by the rule announced by our Supreme Court in Kahn v. James Burton Co., 5 Ill.2d 614, 624: \u201c. . . the only proper basis for decision in such cases dealing with personal injuries to children are the customary rules of ordinary negligence cases.\u201d The court referred to the general rules with respect to absence of duty to trespassers and to the absence of right in children to go on property of others. It then pointed to the exception that exists \u201cwhere a person knows, or should know,\u201d of the habits of young children in frequenting the vicinity of a defective structure or dangerous agency likely to cause harm because the children are incapable of appreciating the risk, and where the expense or inconvenience of protection or prevention is \u201cslight compared to the risk to the children.\u201d The court said the \u201cattraction\u201d is significant only so far as it indicates that trespass by the children should be anticipated, \u201cthe true basis of liability being the foreseeability of harm to the child.\u201d\nWe think the instant complaint states facts sufficient to support a judgment based upon the ordinary negligence theory as applied to an eleven year old boy. The alleged \u201cattractive\u201d element is the unguarded \u201ctempting, open building.\u201d\nThe ruling on the motion for directed verdict is tested by taking only the evidence favorable to plaintiff and drawing legal inferences most favorable for him to decide whether there is any evidence to prove the elements of his case. (March v. Hirshman, 11 Ill.App.2d 245, 137 N.E.2d 279.) Thus considered, the evidence is: The construction of the building began in mid-summer of 1952; the boys in the neighborhood called the house a \u201cfort,\u201d played \u201cguns\u201d and \u201chide and go seek\u201d in it and played there frequently on Saturdays, Sundays and after school; nobody told them to get off the property and workmen who saw them playing in the sand in front of the building said nothing to them; there were no barricades on the doors or windows of the building, no back stairs, and no watchman; and the ladder was dangerous and unsafe.\nFrom that evidence the jury could infer that defendant knew or should have known that the boys were playing in and about the building. It could infer that defendant should have foreseen that the open, or even partially barricaded doors would attract small boys into the building; that once a boy entered he might, in playing or investigating, walk about the unfinished building and find the rear opening; that since there were no rear stairs a workman or some other person was likely to use and leave a ladder at the rear opening; that a boy in the building would probably use the ladder in getting out the rear of the building; and that in climbing down the ladder a boy might be injured.\nIt is our opinion that the evidence and inferences recited were sufficient to take the case to the jury.\nDefendant argues that the ladder was the instrumentality causing the injury, that it was not visible from the front where the boys habitually played and could not have attracted the boys, and that buildings under construction have been ruled not to be attractive nuisances. It was not necessary that the ladder itself be the \u201cattraction\u201d in order to render defendant liable if the building under construction was sufficiently attractive. (Oglesby v. Metropolitan West Side Elevated Ry. Co., 219 Ill.App. 321.) Defendant relies upon Neal v. Home Builders, Inc., 232 Ind. 160, 111 N.E.2d 280, to support the argument that the instant structure was not an attractive nuisance. There the appellant conceded that the facts alleged did not state a case of attractive nuisance. The court said it concurred because although the semi-completed building \u201cmight have been attractive to children\u201d as a place to play there was no allegation of a latent danger negligently created by defendants. But see the dissenting opinions.\nIn the instant case we have proof of the latent danger in the \u201chomemade ladder\u201d which the boy found after being attracted to the partially completed building. We have read cases cited by the majority in the Indiana case and think that they, like the majority opinion, are not persuasive here. The dissenting opinions are more consistent with Illinois law as expressed in Kahn v. James Burton Co., 5 Ill.2d 614. We conclude that the jury could find that defendant should reasonably have foreseen that the structure would attract children.\nThe law is well settled that the question of contributory negligence of a boy eleven years of age must be left to the jury. (Maskaliunas v. Chicago & W. I. R. Co., 318 Ill. 142, 150.)\nWe see no merit in the claim that the court committed reversible error in instructing the jury. There is evidence to support an instruction that the building under construction was \u201cattractive\u201d to children and \u201clured\u201d the boy into a \u201cdangerous situation.\u201d The jury could infer that the ladder leaning against the building was sufficiently connected to it to be considered part of the building and therefore that the condition of the building as a whole was dangerous and unsafe.\nFor the reasons given, the judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nFEINBERGr, P. J., concurs.\nLEWE, J., took no part.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUDGE KILEY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Crowe, Yates, Abrahamson & Fisk, of Chicago (Carl E. Abrahamson, of Chicago, of counsel) for appellant.",
      "Edmnnd J. Bnrke, of Chicago, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Richard Wilinski, by his father and next friend, Stanley Wilinski, Appellee, v. Belmont Builders, Inc., Appellant.\nGen. No. 47,030.\nFirst District, Third Division.\nMay 29, 1957.\nReleased for publication June 20, 1957.\nCrowe, Yates, Abrahamson & Fisk, of Chicago (Carl E. Abrahamson, of Chicago, of counsel) for appellant.\nEdmnnd J. Bnrke, of Chicago, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0100-01",
  "first_page_order": 110,
  "last_page_order": 115
}