{ "id": 2615179, "name": "Wells Bros. Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Edward Manion, Defendant in Error", "name_abbreviation": "Wells Bros. v. Manion", "decision_date": "1908-04-06", "docket_number": "Gen. No, 13,711", "first_page": "527", "last_page": "530", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "140 Ill. App. 527" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "115 Ill. App. 320", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "131 Ill. App. 399", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2486149 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/131/0399-01" ] }, { "cite": "126 Ill. App. 165", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2510867 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/126/0165-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 Ill. App. 492", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2595796 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/101/0492-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 Ill. App. 401", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2598444 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/101/0401-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 Ill. App. 77", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5241307 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/72/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 U. S. 313", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3506760 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/111/0313-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 385, "char_count": 5979, "ocr_confidence": 0.506, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.331642805619592e-08, "percentile": 0.44009592837265804 }, "sha256": "57acf09280788f51e084402a92ad4d5a02560658edec6fd3be214d720f3ba974", "simhash": "1:52ba244f938e008e", "word_count": 1065 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:04.800732+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Wells Bros. Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Edward Manion, Defendant in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Brown\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe judgment of the Municipal Court which it is sought to reverse by the writ of error here involved, is for $200. It was rendered by the court sitting without a jury against the plaintiff in error, the Wells Bros. Company, in favor of the defendant in error, Manion, for a personal injury suffered by him while in the employ of the said company.\nThe Wells Bros. Company was the contractor for the construction of the Field Building at the corner of Washington and State streets in Chicago. Manion was a laborer in their employ. His work was in the .second basement, two floors below the street level. He and his fellow workmen used a double ladder as a means of getting from the first basement to the first floor when leaving their work. November 15, 1906, at about four o\u2019clock in the afternoon he was quitting work and came up this double ladder.\nThe argument of the defendant in error thus states what then happened: \u201cThe top of the ladder extended four or five feet above the level of the first floor, and the floor was not laid in front of the ladder, so that plaintiff could not walk straight ahead the way he was facing; to the right of the top of this stairway was a pile of rubbish two or three feet high, about three or four wheelbarrows full, consisting of short pieces of lumber, sticks and tiles; so that the only way plaintiff had of getting out off the ladder and on the first floor was to walk over this pile of rubbish. In so doing he stepped on a nail or spike in a piece of board or sleeper\u2014a part of this pile of rubbish\u2014and the nail went through plaintiff\u2019s shoe and into the ball of his left foot.\u201d\nWe do not think the facts set forth in this statement made on behalf of the plaintiff in this case show any liability on the part of the defendant.\nIt cannot be the law that when the building is in process of construction an employing owner or contractor, under the general doctrine of his obligation to furnish his employes a safe place to work, is liable for injuries to one of them caused by his stepping in broad daylight on a nail or spike protruding from material, either discarded or to be used, which is lying about.\nCounsel for defendant in error say that \u201cthe rule, as to wrecking a building\u201d is that while the master is doing it \u201che is free from all obligation to use reasonable care to furnish a servant safe surroundings in which to work,\u201d but that this is not the rule as to erecting a building.\nWe do not think that there is a rule to be so broadly stated in either case. There is, however, applicable to both cases, a statement of the law frequently announced by courts in slightly varying forms\u2014that mere transitory and temporary conditions necessarily interfering with the safety of \u201cthe place to work\u201d in buildings, either in process of erection or demolition, do not necessarily render the master liable for injuries resulting therefrom to the workmen.\nThe Court of Appeals of Texas expresses it very well in Armour & Co. v. Dumas, 95 S. W. R. 710, where the facts were much like the case at bar: \u201cIt is insisted,\u201d it says, \u201cthat the duty of exercising care to furnish a reasonably safe place to work resting upon appellant was absolute. * * *. But to this general rule there is the well known exception that the master is not liable where the danger to which the employe is exposed is merely a transitory one, due to no fault or plan of construction, but is one where the work is of such a character that as it progresses the environment of the servant must necessarily undergo frequent changes, and the injury is traceable to one of these transitory changes. This exception finds its illustration for the most part in cases involving the construction of works.\u201d\nThe case cited by the Texas court from the Supreme court of the United States supports this statement. Armour v. Hahn, 111 U. S. 313.\nThis court has announced the same doctrine several times. Richardson v. Anglo-American Provision Co., 72 Ill. App. 77; Merchant v. Mickelson, 101 Ill. App. 401; Western Co. v. O\u2019Donnell, 101 Ill. App. 492; F. J. McCain Co. v. Kingsley, 126 Ill. App. 165; Falkeneau v. Ginley, 131 Ill. App. 399.\nWe do not share the doubt expressed by the learned judge who delivered the opinion in Hansell v. Clark, 115 Ill. App. 320, as to whether the doctrine of the Merchant and Bichardson cases had not been overruled. The Hansell case was, however, plainly distinguishable from them.\nThe reasoning which leads to the conclusion that the danger in such a case is a risk of the employment assumed by the employe, is as strong in case of construction as of demolition.\nThe present case seems to us to be one for its application.\nThe judgment of the Municipal Court is therefore reversed.\nReversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Brown" } ], "attorneys": [ "F. J. Canty, for plaintiff in error; E. J. Folonie and G-eorge Peirshing, of conhsel.", "Egbert L. Stephens, for defendant in error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Wells Bros. Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Edward Manion, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No, 13,711.\n1. Master and servant\u2014shifting conditions as affecting duty to furnish safe place to worlc. Mere transitory and temporary conditions interfering with the safety of the place to work, in buildings in process of erection or demolition, do not necessarily render the master liable for injuries resulting therefrom to the workman.\n2. Master and servant\u2014what not necessarily failure to furnish safe place to worlc. When a building is in process of construction, an employing owner or contractor, under the general doctrine of his obligation to furnish his employes a safe place to work, is not liable for injuries to one of them caused by his stepping, in broad daylight, on a nail or spike protruding from material, either discarded or to be used, which is lying about.\nAction in case for personal injuries. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Thomas B. Lantry, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1907.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed April 6, 1908.\nF. J. Canty, for plaintiff in error; E. J. Folonie and G-eorge Peirshing, of conhsel.\nEgbert L. Stephens, for defendant in error." }, "file_name": "0527-01", "first_page_order": 545, "last_page_order": 548 }