{
  "id": 2600490,
  "name": "American Advertising and Bill Posting Co. v. Hubert Flannigan, by his Next Friend",
  "name_abbreviation": "American Advertising & Bill Posting Co. v. Flannigan",
  "decision_date": "1902-03-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "452",
  "last_page": "454",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "100 Ill. App. 452"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "82 Minn. 60",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Minn.",
      "case_ids": [
        1694341
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/minn/82/0060-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 Mo. App. 9",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mo. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        1460342
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mo-app/82/0009-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 Mich. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mich.",
      "case_ids": [
        1311027
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "5"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mich/25/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 Ill. 141",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        837632
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/154/0141-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 320,
    "char_count": 4385,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.581,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2451821892723408e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6088445697027124
    },
    "sha256": "92e37dc60c860bac8d661ffed306aae1fdddf89b48a99e17a6f71af3ed0bc003",
    "simhash": "1:364d7402b3945876",
    "word_count": 774
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:58:18.095621+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "American Advertising and Bill Posting Co. v. Hubert Flannigan, by his Next Friend,"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mb. Justice Adams\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAppellant was the lessee of a certain triangular vacant piece of ground or lot, bounded by Larrabee, Crosby and Oak streets, in the city of Chicago. It was, as its name indicates, engaged in the bill posting business. On the Larrabee street side of the premises, and about a foot and a half back from that street, it had erected a bill-board about seventy-five feet in length and twelve feet in height. When bills were removed from its bill-boards to be replaced by others, it destroyed them by burning them in the lot. This occurred once or twice a week. August 10,1897, appellant\u2019s employes had burned some removed bills in the lot, in the usual way. The paper bills had been consumed, and there remained a pile black on top with hot ashes or embers underneath. While the remains of the consumed paper were in this condition, appellee, a boy about nine years of age, went to the lot with another boy to play. They were playing horse, as appellee testified, which he explained by saying that he was acting horse and the other boy driver. There was an incline from the edge of the lot downward toward the centre, and appellee, in running up the incline, accidently fell into the pile of hot ashes or embers, and was injured, but not seriously or permanently. There was nothing attractive to children in the lot. Appellee, himself, testified that he was not attracted to the lot by anything in it, but merely went there to play.\nThe jury found for appellee and assessed his damages at the sum of $100, and judgment was rendered on the verdict.\nNo brief or argument has been filed for appellee.\nIn City of Pekin v. McMahon, 154 Ill. 141, the general rule and the exception thereto are thus stated:\n\u201c The general rule is well settled that the private owner or occupant of land is under no obligation to strangers to place guards around exc'avations upon his land. The law does not require him to keep his premises in a safe condition for the benefit of trespassers, or those who come upon them without invitation, either expressed or implied, and merely to seek their own pleasure or to gratify their own curiosity. An exception, however, to this general rule exists in behalf of children. Although a child of tender years who meets with an injury upon the premises of a private owner, may be a technical trespasser, yet the owner may be liable if the things causing the injury have been left exposed and unguarded, and are of such a character as to be an attraction to the child, appealing to his childish curiosity and instinct.\u201d\nSee, also, the following cases: Hargreaves v. Deacon, 25 Mich. 1, 5; Smith v. Jacob Dold Packing Co., 82 Mo. App. 9; Erickson v. Gt. N. Ry. Co., 82 Minn. 60; McDonald v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 35 Fed. Eep. 38.\nThe last three cases are similar in their facts to the present case.\nThe appellant was not guilty of actionable negligence, and the judgment will be reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mb. Justice Adams"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. J. Canty and J. A. Bloomingston, attorneys for appellant.",
      "No appearance by appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "American Advertising and Bill Posting Co. v. Hubert Flannigan, by his Next Friend,\n1. Negligence\u2014Duty of Owner or Oempant of Land to Trespasser\u2014Exception as to Children.\u2014The general rule is that private owners or occupants of land are not required to keep their premises in a safe condition for the benefit of trespassers, or those who come upon them without their invitation, either expressed or implied, merely to seek their own pleasure or gratify their own curiosity. An exception exists as to children; although a child of tender years who meets with an injury upon the premises of a private owner may be a technical trespasser, yet the owner may be liable if the things causing the injury have been left exposed and unguarded, and are of such character as to be attractive to the\" child, appealing to his childish curiosity and instinct.\n2. Same\u2014What is Not, by Lessee of Land Toward Children.\u2014A lessee of premises, who burned paper thereon, leaving the ashes with hot embers underneath, into which a child at play on the lot fell and was burned, there being nothing attractive on the lot, is not guilty of negligence.\nTrespass oil the Case, for personal injuries. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Arra N. Waterman, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1901.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed March 6, 1902.\nF. J. Canty and J. A. Bloomingston, attorneys for appellant.\nNo appearance by appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0452-01",
  "first_page_order": 478,
  "last_page_order": 480
}