{
  "id": 2830086,
  "name": "John McCarren, Appellee, v. A. Isaac Radzinski et al.; On Appeal of Wilmer A. Radzinski, Administrator, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "McCarren v. Radzinski",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,381",
  "first_page": "29",
  "last_page": "30",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ill. App. 29"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 176,
    "char_count": 2086,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.573,
    "sha256": "8f0c8b584d10a7d8cf6b1572e0f78c34ed4097625df6837d4560bb7cf6725205",
    "simhash": "1:6f5a93c7d0ac3915",
    "word_count": 336
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:20.195306+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John McCarren, Appellee, v. A. Isaac Radzinski et al. On Appeal of Wilmer A. Radzinski, Administrator, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Blum & Blum, for appellant.",
      "Jacob C. LeBosky and T. D. Hurley, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John McCarren, Appellee, v. A. Isaac Radzinski et al. On Appeal of Wilmer A. Radzinski, Administrator, Appellant.\nGen. No. 18,381.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Thomas G. Windes, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 9, 1913.\nRehearing denied October 23, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by John McCarren against A. Isaac Radzinski to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while engaged as worker on a building in process of erection belonging to defendant. From a judgment for five thousand dollars, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Negligence, \u00a7 118 -\u2014when averment as to owner's control of building sufficient. Declaration in an action against owner for injuries under Act of 1907 (J. & A. ft 5368), requiring owner to provide for safety of persons in the construction of buildings sufficiently avers that owner retained control of building where it states that defendant constructed a derrick in an unsafe manner.\n2. Negligence, \u00a7 126*\u2014when averment as to due care on part of plaintiff, not necessary. Declaration averring wilful violation of Act of 1907 (J. & A. H 5368), in failing to provide for safety of plaintiff, states a cause of action without alleging due care on part of plaintiff.\n3. Negligence, \u00a7 118*\u2014when declaration states cause of action though statement of details insufficient. Declaration in action against owner under Act of 1907 (J. & A. j[ 5368), for injuries resulting from falling of derrick, held not defective in stating a cause of action though it failed to state clearly the details of the construction of the derrick.\n4. Negligence, \u00a7 185*-\u2014sufficiency of evidence. Evidence held insufficient to sustain defense that plaintiff settled claim with other defendants.\nBlum & Blum, for appellant.\nJacob C. LeBosky and T. D. Hurley, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0029-01",
  "first_page_order": 53,
  "last_page_order": 54
}