{
  "id": 2949354,
  "name": "Margaret Houlihan, Administratrix, Appellee, v. Sulzberger & Sons Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Houlihan v. Sulzberger & Sons Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-03-26",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,960",
  "first_page": "449",
  "last_page": "451",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 449"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 290,
    "char_count": 5009,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.57,
    "sha256": "a222cb726569cfe8978fee86f10878e4ae8482c5c0df5dee535992d302a213d6",
    "simhash": "1:4169d887c527761d",
    "word_count": 828
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:07.214052+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Margaret Houlihan, Administratrix, Appellee, v. Sulzberger & Sons Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dever\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Negligence, \u00a7 187 \u2014when evidence is sufficient to show that death of employee of contractor was due to defective condition of ladder. In an action against the owner of a building to recover for the death of a servant while working for a contractor on defendant\u2019s building, evidence held sufficient to sustain the finding that the accident producing the injuries from which plaintiff\u2019s intestate died was caused by the rotten condition of the ends of two rungs near the top of a ladder on the outside of defendant\u2019s building which broke when the deceased was standing thereon while engaged in his employment.\n3. Master and servant, \u00a7 191*\u2014what are questions for jury in action against owner of building for death of employee of contractor. In an action against the owner of a building to recover damages for the death of an employee of a contractor, where deceased employee lost his life through the defective condition of a certain ladder on the building, held that the questions whether the defendant could fairly be charged with actual or constructive notice of such defective condition, and whether such condition could have been discovered by competent inspection and whether the ladder was properly constructed were for the jury.\n4. Limitation of actions, \u00a7 68*\u2014what does not constitute statement of new cause of action. Where an original declaration charged that plaintiff\u2019s intestate while working for his employer on defendant\u2019s building was engaged in and \u201cabout the placing and repair of a certain large smokestack,\u201d and an amended declaration charged that the deceased was engaged in the fastening of \u201cone end of a guy wire to an iron band that encircled and was clamped to\" the smokestack, held that the evidence warranted a finding that the band referred to was a part of the smokestack, and that the amended declaration did not state a new cause of action, and that a plea of the statute of limitations would not lie against the charge of negligence in either declaration, in an action to recover damages for death from injuries incurred while in such employment.\n5. Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act\u2014when right of recovery against third- person not barred,. Payment by an employer of compensation under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act of 1911 on account of injury or death sustained by an employee due to the negligence of a third person is no bar to recovery from a third person of damages on account of such injury or death.\n6. Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act\u2014when employer subrogated to rights of employee against third person. Under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act of 1911, an employer who pays compensation on account.of an injury or death sustained by an employee by the negligence of a third person is subrogated to the employee\u2019s rights against such person to the extent of such payment.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dever"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Moses, Bosenthal & Kennedy, for appellant; Hamilton Moses and Henry Jackson Darby, of counsel.",
      "James C. McShane, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Margaret Houlihan, Administratrix, Appellee, v. Sulzberger & Sons Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 21,960.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Negligence, \u00a7 25 \u2014when servant of contractor is not trespasser or licensee. In an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate, where it appeared that the deceased\u2019s employer had contracted with the defendant to repair the smokestack on defendant\u2019s building by tightening a loose band thereon, in the course of which work the deceased used a \u201cfire ladder\u201d placed on the outside of the building and running to the roof, and which had been used freely by defendant\u2019s employees in and about their work and was convenient for such use in ascending to the roof, and the contract between the deceased\u2019s employer and defendant did not provide for the construction of any permanent building or ways upon the premises or the furnishing of any material and was for relatively unimportant repair work merely, held that it was the duty of defendant to use reasonable care to furnish deceased with a safe means of access to the roof, and deceased was not a trespasser nor a mere licensee in using such ladder for the purpose of doing, the work of his employer, notwithstanding the ladder was placed on the building as a fire escape.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Clinton F. Irwin, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 26, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Margaret Houlihan, as administratrix of the estate of Frank A. Houlihan, deceased, plaintiff, against Sulzberger & Sons Company, defendant, to recover damages for the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate charged to have been caused by defendant\u2019s negligence. From a judgment for plaintiff for $6,500, defendant appeals.\nMoses, Bosenthal & Kennedy, for appellant; Hamilton Moses and Henry Jackson Darby, of counsel.\nJames C. McShane, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Noted Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0449-01",
  "first_page_order": 475,
  "last_page_order": 477
}