{
  "id": 2921319,
  "name": "Louis Wolff, Appellee, v. Foote Brothers Gear & Machine Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wolff v. Foote Bros. Gear & Machine Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-10-02",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,290",
  "first_page": "311",
  "last_page": "312",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 Ill. App. 311"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 231,
    "char_count": 3685,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.574,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.5828155114230504e-08,
      "percentile": 0.28741173713216484
    },
    "sha256": "8108e0efc59af0ffdcb5541ae86ffbcf583cad849308a6e3507a74d6858cea7b",
    "simhash": "1:9bef6fd6012b830e",
    "word_count": 626
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:34.192092+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Louis Wolff, Appellee, v. Foote Brothers Gear & Machine Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Master and servant, \u00a7 699 \u2014 When not shown that employee is engaged in repair of unguarded machine in motion. Evidence held insufficient to show that an employee engaged in removing chips from beneath a pipe on an unguarded machine which was in motion was engaged in making \u201crepairs\u201d to the active mechanism of a machine in motion in violation of section 1 of the Factory Act of 1909 (J. & A. If 5386).\n3. Appeal and error, \u00a7 438* \u2014 when objection of variance is too late. The objection of variance between pleading and proof cannot he mad.e for the first time on appeal.\n4. Master and servant \u2014 when evidence of dimness of light in factory adntissible. Evidence as to dimness of light in a factory is admissible, in an action by an employee under the Factory Act of 1909 (J. & A. If 5386 et seq.), for injuries due to the failure to guard machinery; as bearing on the issue of contributory negligence.\n5. Appeal and error, \u00a7 408* \u2014 when objection that employer is under Workmen's Compensation Act too late. The objection, in an action by an employee for personal injuries that defendant at the time of the injuries was operating under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, and that consequently no right of action is available except under such act, comes too late when made on review for the first time.\n6. Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, \u00a7 5* \u2014 when civil liability of employer not affected. An action by an employee against his employer for damages for personal injuries due to the failure of the employer to guard machinery, in violation of the Factory Act of 1909 (J. & A. jf 5386 et seq.), is within the exception of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, sec. 3 (J. & A. f 5451), providing that when the injury to the employee is caused by the intentional omission of the employer to comply with statutory safety regulations, nothing shall affect the civil liability of the employer.\n7. Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, \u00a7 12* \u2014 when defense that employer is under is waived. The defense that an employer is under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act is waived where the defendant, in an action at common law by an employee against his master for personal injuries, fails to make such defense under the general issue and offer evidence in support thereof.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. J. McAbdle, for appellant; P. L. McArdle, of counsel.",
      "David K. Tone, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Louis Wolff, Appellee, v. Foote Brothers Gear & Machine Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,290.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Master and servant, \u00a7 158 \u2014 when factory owner guilty of violation of Factory Act as to guarding machine. A factory owner is guilty of a violation of the Factory Act (J. & A. j[ 5386 et seq.), as to guarding of machines, where he fails to guard a machine which is susceptible of being guarded and an employee is injured as the result of such neglect.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. H. Sterling Pomeroy, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 2, 1917.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nAction in trespass on the case by Louis Wolff, plaintiff, against Foote Brothers Gear & Machine Company, defendant, for personal injuries alleged to be due to the failure of defendant to fulfill its statutory duty in guarding the machine at which plaintiff was working. From a judgment for plaintiff for $2,500, defendant appeals.\nE. J. McAbdle, for appellant; P. L. McArdle, of counsel.\nDavid K. Tone, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes 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": "0311-01",
  "first_page_order": 337,
  "last_page_order": 338
}