{
  "id": 2651412,
  "name": "Oliver C. Allan, Plaintiff in Error, v. Donk Bros. Coal & Coke Company, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Allan v. Donk Bros. Coal & Coke Co.",
  "decision_date": "1909-03-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "171",
  "last_page": "172",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "147 Ill. App. 171"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 184,
    "char_count": 2403,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.482,
    "sha256": "5ebd9015d57d66b3a4266089ae392efe2e9616f55edafdeec4298f854e5852e0",
    "simhash": "1:9f78543d4e2db4d8",
    "word_count": 422
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:09:17.407031+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Oliver C. Allan, Plaintiff in Error, v. Donk Bros. Coal & Coke Company, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "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 plaintiff in error against defendant in error to recover for a personal injury. Trial by jury. At the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence the court directed the jury to find the defendant not guilty; the jury \"returned a verdict as directed; and after overruling plaintiff\u2019s motion for new trial, the court rendered judgment on the verdict.'\nThe substance of the theory upon which plaintiff in error\u2019s case is based, is that he was in the service of defendant in error and was directed by one of its superintendents to do certain machinist work at specified times each day, from day to day, until the job should be completed, and that upon the occasion of his injury, he had gone as usual to the performance of this work and while there engaged the defendant in error negligently caused a shaker screen to be moved without giving him any notice or warning, whereby he was injured.\nThe controlling question presented is, does this record disclose evidence tending to prove all that is required to warrant a recovery? We agree with the trial judge in his conclusion that it does not. We fail to find any evidence of negligence on the part of defendant in error.\nCounsel for plaintiff in error contends that the rule res ipsa loquitur applies. We think not. While we are not willing to go to the full length contended for by counsel for defendant in error and hold that the rule res ipsa loquitur \u201chas no application in any case, as between master and servant,\u201d we do agree with them that it has no application in this ease.\nWe are of opinion that the trial judge did not err in directing a verdict in favor of defendant in error.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Creighton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. H. Burton, for plaintiff in error; Joseph Block, of counsel.",
      "Wise, McNulty & Keefe, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Oliver C. Allan, Plaintiff in Error, v. Donk Bros. Coal & Coke Company, Defendant in Error.\nMaster and servant\u2014application of rule res ipsa loquitur. Held, that while this rule did not apply in this case, it might apply in some cases arising between master and servant.\nAction in case for personal injuries. Error to the Circuit Court of Madison county; the Hon. Charles T. Moore, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the August term, 1908.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 4, 1909.\nC. H. Burton, for plaintiff in error; Joseph Block, of counsel.\nWise, McNulty & Keefe, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0171-01",
  "first_page_order": 189,
  "last_page_order": 190
}