{ "id": 2490571, "name": "Helmbacher Forge & Rolling Mills Company v. William Garrett, by next friend", "name_abbreviation": "Helmbacher Forge & Rolling Mills Co. v. Garrett", "decision_date": "1905-03-17", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "166", "last_page": "168", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "119 Ill. App. 166" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "116 App. 121", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ohio App.", "case_ids": [ 8807939 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ohio-app/116/0121-01" ] }, { "cite": "214 Ill. 509", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3317824 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/214/0509-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 363, "char_count": 5928, "ocr_confidence": 0.519, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.621887471290392e-08, "percentile": 0.2896609030101755 }, "sha256": "0f6b6711cc2861425ff3ba5b13e4e7ee65f1433e27cdfc147c45c4ae282467a8", "simhash": "1:e1b5e8d01c0d1e61", "word_count": 1018 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:07:30.746032+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Helmbacher Forge & Rolling Mills Company v. William Garrett, by next friend." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Creighton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was an action in case, in the Circuit Court of Madison County, by appellee against appellant, to recover damages for a personal injury sustained by appellee while in the service of appellant as a \u201ccinder monkey,\u201d in connection with the operation of the iron and steel melting department of its business. Trial by jury. Verdict and judgment in favor of appellee for $1,500.\n. The declaration consisted of four counts. The fourth is-based on the statute of 1897. Counsel for appellant abstract, it \u00e1s follows: \u201cThe fourth count alleges that on the 27th day of May, 1903, the defendant operated a certain manufacturing establishment for the manufacture of iron and steel products fox sale on the market. That it was unlawful for the defendant to employ any child under the age of sixteen years at such extra-hazardous employment whereby its life or limb is in danger, but the defendant employed plaintiff and placed him at work in its manufacturing establishment, at such extra hazardous employment, whereby plaintiff\u2019s life and limb were in danger in this, that it required the plaintiff to remove from certain basins a lot of dross in a molten condition. The plaintiff was under the age of sixteen years, and while attempting to remove said dross,, the same exploded and burned both of his feet, permanently injuring him. That his injuries directly resulted from said-wrongful and unlawful employment, and said wrongful and. unlawful employment was the approximate cause of his injuries.\u201d\nThe statute is as follows: \u201cNo child under the age of sixteen years shall he employed, or permitted or suffered to work by any person, firm, or corporation in this state at such extra-hazardous employment whereby its life or limb is in. danger, or its health is likely to be injured, or its morals may be depraved.\u201d\nAppellant was engaged in the business of melting iron and steel, and had employed appellee and put him to work in its \u201ccinder gang.\u201d In the process of melting, dross or slag is formed into what are called \u201ccinder clods:\u201d and on the occasion of appellee\u2019s injury a cinder clod exploded or burst and a lot of molten metal ran from the inside onto his feet and into his shoes and very seriously burned both his feet.\nCounsel for appellant base their claim for a reversal upon, three propositions. First, appellee must recover, if at all, upon the allegations of his declaration, and they claim there is no evidence in the record tending to prove any count of the declaration; second, that appellee, from his own knowledge or experience, understood and appreciated the dangers,, and. in such case must be held to have assumed the risk, notwithstanding the fact that he was under the age of sixteen years;; third, that appellee was guilty of contributory negligence, and that contributory negligence is a. defense to the action setup in the fourth count of the declaration. :\nIt is insisted in support of the first proposition, that \u201cthere is no evidence that.the cinder clod exploded.\u201d Counsel say-in their statement of the case: \u201cA hole burst in the side of the clod, a part of the side fell out.\u201d One witness in speaking of it said it \u201cexploded,\u201d and in another place he .said, \u201cwhen it broke, the molten iron appeared to jump out.\u201d Appellee said it \u201cburst,\u201d and in another place said, \u201cI had shoes on my feet at the time, and it got in my shoes.\u201d And another witness said: \u201cI saw a hole in there that was very bright, and I heard it sound like a fuse.\u201d The words \u201cexplode\u201d and \u201cburst,\u201d in the sense in which they must be understood, at this .point, in the present state of the record before us, are practically synonymous. Burst means, as defined in Webster, \u201cA sudden breaking forth; an explosion.\u201d An explosion is defined to be, \u201cA discharge; an outburst.\u201d\nAnd they say, \u201cthere is no evidence which tends to prove that appellee was required to remove dross in a molten condition.\u201d The undisputed evidence is, that the contents of the cinder clod was always molten at the time it was being moved. The molten mass flowed out from the furnaces into a basin, and as it cooled, formed the clod. In cooling it formed a crust on the outside, and they were required to move it as soon as the crust was thick enough to bear handling, while the inside was still in a molten state. To bear handling the crust must be only about three inches thick.\nThe jury was abundantly warranted in finding that appellee was under sixteen years of age; that the work he was set to do was an extra-hazardous employment, within the meaning of the statute; that he was injured while in that employment, and that- such employment was the proximate cause of his injuries.\nThe two remaining questions, we think, are clearly determined by our Supreme Court, in American Car and Foundry Company vs. Koss Armentraut, by next friend, 214 Ill. 509, affirming 116 App. 121. There the court in effect holds that neither the law of assumed risk, nor that of contributory negligence applies in cases of this kind.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Creighton" } ], "attorneys": [ "Wise & McNulty and McKeighan & Watts, for appellant.", "Webb & Webb and Burton & Wheeler, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Helmbacher Forge & Rolling Mills Company v. William Garrett, by next friend.\n1. Extra hazardous employment\u2014when recovery sustained in,,, action arising by reason of. Held, that the jury were justified in. finding that the plaintiff was under sixteen years of age, was set to do extra hazardous work within the meaning of the statute, was; injured while engaged at such work, and that a recovery could not be defeated in such case by either the defense of assumed risk or that, of contributory negligence.\nAction on the case for personal injuries. Appeal from the Circuit. Court of Madison County; the Hon. Charles T. Moore, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the August term, 1904.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 17, 1905.\nWise & McNulty and McKeighan & Watts, for appellant.\nWebb & Webb and Burton & Wheeler, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0166-01", "first_page_order": 184, "last_page_order": 186 }