{
  "id": 2637092,
  "name": "Sophie Topolski, Appellee, v. Chicago Heights Gas Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Topolski v. Chicago Heights Gas Co.",
  "decision_date": "1909-06-28",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 14,553",
  "first_page": "126",
  "last_page": "129",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "150 Ill. App. 126"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 369,
    "char_count": 7174,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.491,
    "sha256": "8aa792ab5b2d58475c4a66bf5f5705bd853b3f5d06ab40e7a8041fe548a0de06",
    "simhash": "1:6e473b99584cc30a",
    "word_count": 1303
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:21.164089+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Sophie Topolski, Appellee, v. Chicago Heights Gas Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Baker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn an action on the case for personal injuries brought by appellee against appellant, plaintiff had judgment for $1,500, and the defendant appealed.\nPlaintiff\u2019s husband conducted a saloon and boarding house in Chicago Heights. The defendant put gas pipes and fixtures in said building and supplied gas to it. The cause of action alleged in the declaration was that through the negligence of the defendant gas was permitted to escape into said building, and that the plaintiff, by inhaling such gas, was injured.\nOn the ground floor of the building was a room about thirty-eight feet long and twenty-three feet wide. In one corner of this room was a room eight or ten feet square, but the partitions which separated it from the remainder of the room only extended to within two or three feet of the ceiling. \u25a0 In the larger room was the bar, and in it the family and boarders ate their meals. The smaller room was used as a kitchen, and in it were the gas supply pipe, gas meter and regulator.\nAn odor of gas was noticed in the building on the evening of December 21,1905, and defendant was notified and requested to make repairs. The next morning between seven thirty and eight o\u2019clock, Myers, a gas fitter, and Flary, a helper, in the service of the defendant, came to-the building to make repairs.\nThe testimony of the plaintiff tended to show that after Myers and Flary had been at work in the small room about an hour, she, then standing by the bar in the large room, was overcome by gas and fell to the floor. She testified in chief that Myers and Flary \u201cunscrewed a pipe in three small pieces, * * * and they were working there when I started to holler, and says, \u2018Jesus, Mary and Joseph, there is gas around,\u2019 and they said, \u2018The gas won\u2019t kill nobody,\u2019 and in the meantime I fell.\u201d * * *\n\u201cQ. Where were you standing at the time when you fell?\nA. On the corner back of the bar.\nQ. What did they do then, if you know?\nA. I did not know nothing. I do not remember anything.\nQ. Do you know how long you laid there?\nA. I do not remember how long I was there.\nQ. When do you remember anything after that\u2014\u25a0 after that time that you fell down; when do you remember anything after that?\nA. I remember that I went outside and I had to throw up, and'got the hiccoughs and started to holler, and could not holler nobody.\nQ. Do you know how you got out?\nA. I remember I got out on the four and I was hollering. I could not holler hardly. \u2019 \u2019\nShe further testified that she sat down on the sidewalk, and a boy and girl employed by her took her into her house and up stairs. On cross-examination she testified that she fell down right away after the men said that the gas would not hurt her, and \u201cdid not know nothing;\u201d that the men ran out after she fell down; that the taking off of the pipe, the running away of the men and her fall all happened pretty near the same time; that when she was feeling so bad, the men left everything and ran away.\nMyers testified that he and Flary went to the saloon at eight o\u2019clock in the morning of December 22nd-; that he noticed an odor of gas, but not a strong odor, in the saloon; that he found a leak in a pipe leading to an unlighted burner in a chandelier in the saloon, only partially turned off; that he turned the cock and shut off the gas; that he went into the little room and shut off the gas by turning the service cock, which was below the regulator; that he then took off the regulator and, when it was off, discovered a slight leak in the service cock, and screwed a plug into the top of the service cock; that he then disconnected the regulator and took it with him to the shop; that he and Flary were at the saloon three-quarters of an hour; that plaintiff did not utter any exclamation or fall down while they were at the saloon, but was standing Up when they went away. The testimony of Flary as to what occurred at the saloon in the morning was substantially the same as that of Myers. He testified that plaintiff did not utter any exclamation; did not fall down, but was standing up when he and Myers left.\nMyers and Flary left the saloon before nine o\u2019clock, and did not return until after one o\u2019clock in the afternoon. Plaintiff, according to her testimony, was overcome by gas before they left in the morning, and it is therefore only necessary, in determining whether the verdict is contrary to the evidence, to consider the testimony tending to show what occurred in the morning.\nThe only act of negligence which the testimony of the plaintiff tends to prove is the disconnecting of the service pipe without shutting off the gas below the point at which the pipe was so disconnected. That the service pipe was disconnected is undisputed. If this was done without shutting off the gas, such act was a negligent act. If, before disconnecting the service pipe, the gas was shut off by turning the service cock, the act of disconnecting the service pipe was not negligent.\nThe plaintiff did not testify that she observed the service cock, or that she knew that the gas was not turned off below the place where the pipe was disconnected, before the pipe was disconnected. Myers and Flary both testified that the service cock was turned and the gas shut off before the pipe was disconnected.\nThe testimony of Myers and Flary that fb\u00abv off the gas at the service cock before disconnecting the pipe above the service cock, is probable. A natural regard for their own safety would prompt them to so shut off the gas before disconnecting the pipe. Again, it is difficult to see how plaintiff, out in the large room, could be overcome by gas escaping from an open pipe in the small room, when neither Myers nor Flary, who were at work in the small room, was overcome or even affected.\nThe testimony of plaintiff that she was overcome and fell to the floor in the presence of Myers and Flary, and that they left their work and ran away, leaving her lying on the floor unconscious, is improbable and is contradicted by both Myers and Flary.\nA careful review of all the evidence has led us to the conclusion that the verdict was so manifestly against the evidence that the trial court erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion for a new trial, and the judgment will therefore be reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Baker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lackner, Butz & Miller, for appellant.",
      "George A. Brinkman, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Sophie Topolski, Appellee, v. Chicago Heights Gas Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 14,553.\n1. Negligence\u2014manner o/ repairing gas pipes. If a personal injury is suffered by escaping gas, negligence is established if it is shown that the defendant in repairing the gas pipe in the premises in question disconnected the service pipe without shutting off the gas below the point at which such pipe was so disconnected.\n2. Verdicts\u2014when set aside as against the evidence. A verdict will be set aside as against the evidence if it is clearly and manifestly so.\nAction in case for personal injuries. Appeal from the City Court of Chicago Heights; the Hon. Homeb Abbott, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1908.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed June 28, 1909.\nLackner, Butz & Miller, for appellant.\nGeorge A. Brinkman, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0126-01",
  "first_page_order": 142,
  "last_page_order": 145
}