{
  "id": 5349748,
  "name": "Frank Darling, Conservator, Appellant, v. William Wood, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Darling v. Wood",
  "decision_date": "1912-03-13",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 5554",
  "first_page": "272",
  "last_page": "275",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "168 Ill. App. 272"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "245 Ill. 516",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3408609
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/245/0516-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 Ill. App. 15",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2460831
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/137/0015-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 Ill. 227",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2622693
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/66/0227-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 433,
    "char_count": 6540,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.463,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.8172472706271035e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3025631996305576
    },
    "sha256": "7cca56b2a0a91b6f56b0823c48e6cb567714d934faf75e55d1b7ce9511288457",
    "simhash": "1:71c1ef7a0f8f96af",
    "word_count": 1150
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:34:38.590196+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank Darling, Conservator, Appellant, v. William Wood, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Morton W. Thompson\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff was operating a shaft coal mine in Grundy county, at the time of the injury complained of in this suit. The mine was about seventy feet deep, and was operated by means of horse power. The shaft was about four by nine feet, with two cages raised and lowered by a link chain attached to the top of each cage, running over pulleys above, and then out and around a \u201cdrum\u201d or windlass so that as one cage was raised the other was lowered.\nOn November 26, 1906, appellant\u2019s ward and his brother Eoy, who had dug coal in this mine the week before, got into a coal car on one of the cages to be lowered into the mine to go to work. Shortly after they started down, the chain parted and the cage fell to the bottom of the shaft and both were injured. Eoy testified that he had with him a miner\u2019s pick, and. from the conflicting evidence we are satisfied that there were other picks in the car. George was severely injured by some sharp instrument, as Dr. Walsh, his attending physician, testified, penetrating the base of the spine, probably four inches, and slivered the end of the bony spinal column called the \u201ccoccyx.\u201d The end of the backbone was split open a couple of inches: He was confined to his bed for some time from the injury.\nBefore this injury George had been confined in the Insane Hospital, and since has been re-committed and appellant appointed his conservator, and as such brings this suit.\nThe cages were not furnished with covers of any kind, and were not equipped with safety catches.\nThe declaration consists of four counts. The first is a common law count for negligence. The second is for a violation of paragraph \u201ce\u201d of section 16 of the Mines and Miners Act; the third for a violation of paragraph \u201cd\u201d of section 2, in not having the cages furnished with suitable boiler iron covers; and the fourth for a violation of said paragraph \u201cd\u201d in not having the cages equipped with safety catches.\nThe second count alleges that the cages were raised and lowered by means of an endless chain running over pulleys; that it was the duty of defendant to provide reasonably safe machinery, apparatus and appliances for lowering and hoisting said cage, and to use reasonable and ordinary care to keep and maintain the said chain in reasonably good and safe repair and condition for the use of said persons employed in said mine, and that defendant carelessly and negligently suffered and permitted said chain to become and remain in a worn and unsafe condition.\nThe defendant filed his plea of the general issue and special pleas, alleging that plaintiff\u2019s ward was at the time of the injury descending the shaft in question on the cage which was carrying his tools, in violation of paragraph \u201cc\u201d of section 28 of said Mines and Miners Act; and that plaintiff\u2019s ward was not in the employ of defendant at the time of his injury. No replication seems to have been filed to either of said pleas, and the case was tried; and the jury found defendant not guilty. A motion for a new trial was denied, judgment was rendered on the verdict, and plaintiff appeals.\nAppellant assigns error covering all the points raised. It is insisted that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of defendant.\nPlaintiff\u2019s ward was not a witness in this case, but his brother Eoy testified on behalf of plaintiff, to the conversation had with defendant the day before they began work in this mine, about a week before the injury; and defendant was competent under exception \u201cFourth\u201d of section 2, chapter 51 of the statute to testify to that conversation. Donlevy v. Montgomery et al., 66 Ill. 227. While defendant was asked and answered some questions not strictly proper we think they did appellant no harm.\nIt is also insisted that defendant\u2019s use of a link chain was a violation of the statute, hut it is sufficient to say that the declaration does not count on that violation of the Act. As to the third and fourth counts the evidence is conclusive and uncontradicted, but defendant attempts to avoid them by proof of his first additional plea.\n\"We cannot agree with appellee\u2019s contention that the violation of the statute by plaintiff\u2019s ward in getting in an empty car on the cage and taking picks with him should bar a recovery for a wilful violation of the statute by the operator. It would amount only to contributory negligence on his part, which has been held in numerous cases not to be a defense against a charge of wilful violation. Illinois Collieries Company v. Davis, 137 Ill. App. 15.\nHad the cage been equipped with safety catches, as required, to prevent its falling in case the machinery or appliances broke or failed to work properly, as happened in this instance, plaintiff\u2019s ward would not have been injured as he was.\nAs was said in Waschow v. Kelly Coal Company, 245 Ill. 516, 519: \u201cWe think it cannot be seriously urged that the mine was not in an unsafe and dangerous condition, substantially as alleged in the declaration. When an injury proceeds from two causes operating together, the party putting in motion one of them is liable the same as though it was the sole cause. The negligent act or omission must be one of the essential causes producing the injury, but need not to be the sole cause nor the last or nearest cause. It is sufficient if it concurs with the other cause acting at the same time, which in combination with it causes the injury.\u201d See authorities cited.\nThere are other errors urged which may not occur on another trial, and we therefore do not discuss them at this time. For the reasons given, the judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for another trial.\njReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Morton W. Thompson"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. W. Rausch, for appellant.",
      "J. G. Petteys and McDougall & Chapman, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank Darling, Conservator, Appellant, v. William Wood, Appellee.\nGen. No. 5554.\n1. Pleading \u2014 when proof of cause of action incompetent. A cause of action not counted upon in the declaration cannot be established by evidence.\n2. Mines and minees \u2014 what does not bar recovery for wilful violation. \u25a0 A defense which amounts merely to a charge that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence will not bar an action under the mines and miners act charging a wilful violation.\nAction in case for personal injuries. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Grundy county; the Hon. Samuel C. Stough, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1911.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed March 13, 1912.\nJ. W. Rausch, for appellant.\nJ. G. Petteys and McDougall & Chapman, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0272-01",
  "first_page_order": 290,
  "last_page_order": 293
}