{
  "id": 2851403,
  "name": "George Fugina, Appellee, v. Federal Furnace Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fugina v. Federal Furnace Co.",
  "decision_date": "1914-02-03",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,919",
  "first_page": "121",
  "last_page": "122",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. App. 121"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 175,
    "char_count": 2221,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "sha256": "39e340e1ee92bf1f83ee2fceb144453be39f053fbe3c046232bfa7aa3468d26e",
    "simhash": "1:e564ecc5da2ea259",
    "word_count": 371
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:38.716309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George Fugina, Appellee, v. Federal Furnace Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Smith"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ralph F. Potter, for appellant; Robert J. Folonib, of counsel.",
      "Lee & Lee, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George Fugina, Appellee, v. Federal Furnace Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 18,919.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 3, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by George Fugina against Federal Furnace Company to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff by being burned by hot flue dust caused by the negligence of defendant in causing a car of flue dust to be dumped while plaintiff, in the employ of defendant, was engaged in shoveling the dust from the car. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for two thousand five hundred dollars, defendant appeals.\nAppellant assigns for error that a verdict should have been directed for defendant, and that the verdict is contrary to the evidence and the law. It is maintained in support of such errors assigned: (1) That the evidence fails to show any negligence on the part of appellant; (2) that the plaintiff\u2019s injuries were proximately caused by risks which he assumed; and (3) that if any negligence contributed to his injuries it was that of fellow-servants.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nMasker and servant, \u00a7 191 \u2014when evidence shows master liable for injury to servant resulting from negligent order of foreman. In an action by a servant to recover for personal injuries sustained by being burned by hot flue dust, the evidence showing that while plaintiff was shoveling the dust from a car the defendant\u2019s foreman caused the car to be dumped by negligently issued orders to other servants to release the appliance at the bottom of the car without warning plaintiff, held that the court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict for defendant, that the evidence did not show that the injuries were approximately caused by the risks which he assumed or by the negligence of fellow-servants, and that a verdict for plaintiff was sustained by the evidence.\nRalph F. Potter, for appellant; Robert J. Folonib, of counsel.\nLee & Lee, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0121-01",
  "first_page_order": 147,
  "last_page_order": 148
}