{
  "id": 2797618,
  "name": "John Dutkowiak, Appellee, v. Jacob Rodatz, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dutkowiak v. Rodatz",
  "decision_date": "1912-02-13",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 16,123",
  "first_page": "355",
  "last_page": "361",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "167 Ill. App. 355"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "145 Ill. App. 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2661025
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "257-60"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/145/0255-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 Ill. App. 423",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2612110
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/139/0423-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 Ill. 358",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3326161
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "365-7"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/226/0358-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 Ill. 466",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5629656
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "471-3"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/229/0466-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 524,
    "char_count": 10652,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.505,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.0845138075617536
    },
    "sha256": "917fc652e255c3fe6ff5ca30b0907d10f8ba4ab1dba1be189a85dbb19653c0b2",
    "simhash": "1:1907fc072a16e6fc",
    "word_count": 1889
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:43:24.567643+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John Dutkowiak, Appellee, v. Jacob Rodatz, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gridley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an appeal, in an action for personal injuries, from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook county, against Jacob Eodatz, appellant, in favor of John Dntkowiak, appellee, for $2,000. The jury by verdict assessed the damages at $4,000, appellee remitted $2,-000, and the judgment followed.\nAppellant contracted to make excavations in the ground for Pettibone-Mulliken Company on the premises of that company in 'Chicago. The proposed pit was to be excavated immediately south of the south wall of the power house of said company, and was to be about eleven feet square and about ten or eleven feet deep. The location was such that a vestibule, or shanty, about six feet square, which protected a door in the south side of said power house had to be, and was, torn down and removed. The vestibule had rested on stone foundation walls, about four feet deep and sixteen inches thick, said walls being about flush with the top of the ground. The entire east foundation wall of the vestibule, and all of the south foundation wall, except a very small portion at its extreme westerly end, came within the limits of -the proposed pit, and appellant, in carrying out his contract, was to remove said east and south foundation walls, but the west foundation wall of this vestibule, which was six or eight inches west of the west line of the proposed pit, was to remain in the ground. Appellant employed seven men to dig the pit, and appellee was one of the number, as was John Eeimann, who acted as foreman. As the digging progressed, all dirt that was east of said west foundation wall was removed down to a level even with the bottom of said wall, which was about 'four feet from the surface of the ground. When this level was reached the men did not continue to dig further down -on a line perpendicular with the east face of said foundation wall, but they confined themselves' to the real westerly limit of the proposed pit, and thus a ledge or shelf, to the east of the east face of said wall, of about eight inches was left, as the digging progressed downward, the top of which shelf or ledge, was on a level with the bottom of said wall.\nOn the afternoon of August 18, 1906, and when the excavations had been made to a depth of from eight to eleven feet below the surface of the ground, and while appellee was engaged in digging near the westerly boundary of said pit, the soil below said foundation wall gave way and the wall slid, but did not fall over, into the pit, and struck appellee on his leg, breaking the same. With the exception of about a foot at the surface, the soil consisted of hard, red or yellow clay. All of the men working in the pit had been doing this kind of work in Chicago for many years, were experienced men, and well acquainted with the nature and character of the different kinds of soil.\nThe declaration consisted of four counts, the various averments of which may be summarized as follows : That plaintiff was engaged as a laborer, together with other co-laborers, in doing excavating work in said pit; that defendant had a foreman in charge of the work and the laborers, including plaintiff, who was not plaintiff\u2019s fellow servant; that when the excavation had reached a depth of about six feet below the level of the bottom of said foundation wall there was great danger of said wall caving in and falling into said excavation, which danger said foreman knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care should have known; that plaintiff called said foreman\u2019s attention to the danger of said wall falling, but said foreman negligently assured plaintiff there was no danger, and ordered plaintiff to continue his work; that plaintiff suggested to said foreman that said wall be braced to prevent its falling, and said foreman promised him that he would take steps to insure the wall not falling, and, if necessary, would prop up said wall, and ordered plaintiff to continue his work, and which promise said foreman negligently failed to keep; that plaintiff, relying on the \u201csuperior knowledge and judgment \u2019 \u2019 of the foreman, and not appreciating the danger because of his \u201cinexperience,\u201d and by reason of the promise of the foreman to prop up the wall, and by reason of the command of the foreman, continued his work; and that, while plaintiff was so working, and exercising ordinary care for his own safety, said wall caved in and fell, and injured plaintiff, etc.\nOn the trial, the plaintiff himself was the only witness on his behalf as to the accident, his other three witnesses being physicians who attended him. Plaintiff testified that he was fifty years of age; that he had worked for appellant for fourteen years, doing a lot of shovelling and digging in basements or trenches in Chicago in different kinds of soil; that he commenced digging in the pit on Thursday, and that he, with other laborers, dug continuously during working hours until he was injured on Saturday afternoon; that on said afternoon, just after the men had had lunch and had started to work, about five minutes past one o\u2019clock, the foreman came along, and \u201cwe asked him if it was not dangerous with that wall up there, and he said, \u2018No, go ahead and work;\u2019 \u201d that the hole was then about eleven feet deep and the wall rested on clay; that the foreman further said that if he saw that the wall was not able to stay there he would brace it up; that plaintiff continued digging; that ITaak, a fellow laborer, was digging along side of him; that the foreman did not brace up the wall; that about twenty-five minutes after one o\u2019clock the wall \u201cslipped\u201d and fell on plaintiff\u2019s leg and broke it; that when the foreman \u201ctold me to go to work after I had told him the wall looked dangerous, I don\u2019t know exactly why I went to work;\u201d that \u201cI didn\u2019t think the wall was going to come down;\u201d that the foreman did not do any digging that afternoon before plaintiff got hurt; that when we started to dig Saturday morning the bottom of the pit was then about on a level with the bottom of this foundation wall; that when plaintiff quit work Thursday night said foreman told him to leave this shelf there at the bottom of this foundation wall, but that when he started to dig on Saturday morning said foreman told him to dig flush with the wall, and that he dug away this shelf and that when he got hurt \u201call of that shelf had been dug away and the inside of the wall and the clay below it were even.\u201d\nAt the conclusion of the plaintiff\u2019s case, counsel for appellant moved the court to instruct the jury to find him not guilty, which motion was denied, and at the conclusion of all the evidence this motion was renewed and again denied, to which rulings exceptions were taken.\nOn behalf of appellant, the foreman, Reimann, testified, as did five laborers working in or about the pit at the time of the accident. From this testimony it appears that at the time of the accident the foreman was in the pit digging along side of plaintiff, and Haak, a co-laborer with plaintiff, was digging on the other side of plaintiff; that two other laborers were in the pit a short distance away throwing the dirt into wheelbarrows, and two other laborers were engaged in wheeling the wheelbarrows. Reimann testified he had been foreman for appellant for many years and was an experienced man as to the nature and character of various soils, that when he and plaintiff were digging, at the time of the accident, the soil all around was hard, red clay, that the said foundation wall was solid, with no cracks in it, that he at no time ordered plaintiff to take down said eight inch shelf or ledge, and that the same had not been taken down, and that it was red clay and looked solid, that he had examined the soil and wall and did not notice anything about either that indicated that the wall would fall, that plaintiff at no time said anything to him, or he to plaintiff, as to danger of the wall falling, or anything about propping up the wall, nor did any.of the other men. The other five laborers all corroborated the foreman as to the said eight inch shelf, or ledge, being there at the time of the accident; all testify that they at no time said anything, nor did they hear plaintiff say anything, to said foreman as to danger- of the said wall falling, and that said wall, and the clay underneath it, were not cracked and appeared solid.\nThe principal errors assigned are that the trial court erred in not directing a verdict for appellant and in overruling appellant\u2019s motion for a new trial, and that the verdict and judgment is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and to the law; and counsel for appellant argues that the evidence clearly shows that appellant was not negligent, and that plaintiff assumed the obvious risk.\nAccording to the testimony of plaintiff, it was five minutes after one o\u2019clock on the afternoon of the accident, when plaintiff, as he says, spoke to Eeimann about the wall, and it was twenty minutes later that the wall slipped down; and in the interim, plaintiff and the cu-laborer, Haak, were continuously digging, side by side, in close proximity to said wall, and other co-laborers were working in the pit. The conditions were constantly being changed, and partially by plaintiff\u2019s own acts, and plaintiff was, himself, in a position to best observe those changing conditions. We think, after a careful review of the record, that under the facts -disclosed, and the law as stated in the cases below cited, the trial court erred in entering the judgment in this case, and that the appellant was not guilty of negligence, and that plaintiff assumed the risk. Village of Montgomery v. Robertson, 229 Ill. 466, 471-3; Elgin, etc., Railway Co. v. Myers, 226 Ill. 358, 365-7; Slagle v. Village of Averyville, 139 Ill. App. 423; Gunszfsky v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co., 145 Ill. App. 255, 257-60.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is, accordingly, reversed.\nReversed, with finding of facts.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gridley delivered the opinion of the court."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. J. Cahty and J. C. M. Clow, for appellant.",
      "B. M. Thomas, for appellee; A. L. G-ettys, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Dutkowiak, Appellee, v. Jacob Rodatz, Appellant.\nGen. No. 16,123.\nVerdicts\u2014when set aside with finding of facts. Where the evidence establishes that the plaintiff who was a servant of the defendant had assumed the risk which resulted in ,.his injury a judgment in Ms favor will be reversed with finding of facts.\nAction in ease for personal injuries. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richard S. Ttjthill, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1909.\nReversed with finding of fact.\nOpinion filed February 13, 1912.\nF. J. Cahty and J. C. M. Clow, for appellant.\nB. M. Thomas, for appellee; A. L. G-ettys, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0355-01",
  "first_page_order": 375,
  "last_page_order": 381
}