{
  "id": 2827846,
  "name": "Cornelius Wiersema, Defendant in Error, v. Lockwood & Strickland Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wiersema v. Lockwood & Strickland Co.",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,744",
  "first_page": "11",
  "last_page": "12",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ill. App. 11"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 227,
    "char_count": 2809,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.554,
    "sha256": "693502e7c5eea8524308d146ff8a33b9f8e04f58731053df945f7c8d2a0f506c",
    "simhash": "1:ff7fe915648f005c",
    "word_count": 463
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:20.195306+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Cornelius Wiersema, Defendant in Error, v. Lockwood & Strickland Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. J. Canty and P. L. McArdle, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Gallagher & Messner, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Cornelius Wiersema, Defendant in Error, v. Lockwood & Strickland Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 17,744.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Oscar M. Tobbison, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 9, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Cornelius Wiersema against Lockwood & Strickland Company, a corporation, for personal injuries received by plaintiff while in the employ of defendant. -From a judgment for plaintiff for five hundred dollars, defendant brings error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Master and servant, \u00a7 826 \u2014when special findings of jury conclusive as to conduct of plaintiff. In action against an employer for injuries resulting from an unsafe place to work, special findings of the jury to the effect that plaintiff did not know that machinery was unguarded, that he was in the exercise of ordinary care and that the risks were not so imminent that a man of ordinary prudence would not have incurred them, held conclusive as to conduct of plaintiff.\n2. Master and servant, \u00a7 376*\u2014when no assumption of risk by Knowledge of danger. Employe does not, by working on an unguarded machine, with knowledge that it is unguarded, assume risk of injury from master\u2019s failure to suitably guard the machine in compliance with an ordinance or statute.\n3. Master and servant, \u00a7 779*\u2014when instruction not based on theory of negligent order of foreman. Instruction is not based on the theory of a specific negligent order of foreman because it incidentally refers to orders of the foreman, when plaintiff\u2019s statement of claim is not based on such theory and the instruction permits recovery only on proof of the negligence charged therein.\n4. Municipal corporations, \u00a7 828*'\u2014where ordinance for safety of employes valid. City ordinance providing for safety of employes in factories, -workshops, etc., must be held a valid exercise of the police power delegated to the municipality, when no question is raised as to its reasonableness.\n5. Appeal and error, g 541*\u2014what necessary to review special findings of jury. Special findings are conclusive where appellant did not in its motion for new trial, or otherwise, move that they be set aside.\n6. Appeal and error, \u00a7 531*\u2014how questions of validity of ordinance preserved. To raise question of validity of an ordinance on ground that it is in violation of a statute or the constitution the question must be embodied in a proposition of law, and exception preserved to the ruling thereon.\nF. J. Canty and P. L. McArdle, for plaintiff in error.\nGallagher & Messner, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0011-01",
  "first_page_order": 35,
  "last_page_order": 36
}