{
  "id": 2857380,
  "name": "Joseph Bienias, Appellee, v. John Brucker and Henry Brucker, Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bienias v. Brucker",
  "decision_date": "1914-06-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,325",
  "first_page": "315",
  "last_page": "316",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "187 Ill. App. 315"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 186,
    "char_count": 2270,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "sha256": "89dda5fcc04d8a05c90b87100e8030994bd0e3c540dd0673432eaa54f2c59fa9",
    "simhash": "1:93d7aee3f52a0f1d",
    "word_count": 391
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:57:10.884591+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joseph Bienias, Appellee, v. John Brucker and Henry Brucker, Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles F. Fritz and David A. Orebaugh for appellants.",
      "Royal W. Irwin and Frank W. Koraleski, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joseph Bienias, Appellee, v. John Brucker and Henry Brucker, Appellants.\nGen. No. 19,325.\n(Hot to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Theodore Brentano, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.\nReversed with finding of facts.\nOpinion filed June 15, 1914.\nRehearing denied June 29, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Joseph Bienias against John Brucker and Henry Brucker to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while employed by defendants as a \u201cchipper\u201d of castings. It appeared that plaintiff was using an emery wheel machine and that a foreman ordered him to grease certain belts which ran the machine; that in greasing the same he used a stick of graphite by placing it against the inside of the belt at a place where it was running towards a pulley and his hand caught between the belt and pulley. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $2,000, defendants appeal.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Master and servant, \u00a7 410 \u2014when compliance with order of foreman does not relieve of assumption of risk. A servant Is not relieved from the doctrine of assumption of risk in doing work in obedience to an order of a foreman where he has complete knowledge of all the dangers attendant upon a compliance with the order.\n2. Master and servant, \u00a7 411*\u2014when recovery for injuries resulting to employe while greasing belt not warranted by the evidence. In an action, by an employe for personal injuries caused by his hand catching between a belt and a pulley while attempting, in obedience to an order of a foreman, to grease a belt which operated an emery wheel machine at which he worked as a \u201cchipper\u201d of castings, held that a verdict for plaintiff was not sustained by the evidence, it appearing that the order of the foreman was a general one \u201cto grease the belts,\u201d that the dangers were plainly apparent and fully known to plaintiff and that he chose an unsafe method of greasing the belt.\nCharles F. Fritz and David A. Orebaugh for appellants.\nRoyal W. Irwin and Frank W. Koraleski, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number,"
  },
  "file_name": "0315-01",
  "first_page_order": 341,
  "last_page_order": 342
}