{
  "id": 2926240,
  "name": "John H. Bogert, Appellee, v. Chalmers & Williams, corporation, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bogert v. Chalmers & Williams",
  "decision_date": "1917-10-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,324",
  "first_page": "457",
  "last_page": "459",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 Ill. App. 457"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 265,
    "char_count": 3528,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.57,
    "sha256": "f127179d27a64a4cda6e117bf9c963e728ed365c6378e6c5ce89d5b76752fdab",
    "simhash": "1:4137b7e6c097364d",
    "word_count": 580
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:34.192092+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John H. Bogert, Appellee, v. Chalmers & Williams, corporation, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice O\u2019Connor\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n4. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1088* \u2014 what points may not be urged in argument. Points not made in the brief on appeal cannot be urged in argument.\n5. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1088* \u2014 necessity of specifically pointing out error in brief. Any error complained of on appeal must be: specifically pointed out in the brief.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice O\u2019Connor"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frank M. Cox and B. J. Fellingham, for appellant.",
      "Bichard J. Finn, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John H. Bogert, Appellee, v. Chalmers & Williams, corporation, Appellant.\nGen. No. 22,324.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Victos P. Arnold, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 10, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by John H. Bogert, plaintiff, against Chalmers & Williams, a corporation, defendant, to recover damages under section 1 of the Act to provide for the health, safety and comfort of employees in factories, mercantile establishments, etc., in force July 1,1910 (J. & A. 5386), for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff. From a judgment for plaintiff for $3,000, upon defendant\u2019s motion at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence for a directed verdict, defendant appeals.\nPlaintiff was injured while at work in defendant\u2019s machine shop by the falling of a block which was supported from a cable running around a drum on a crane operated on an overhead track by electrical power and. the accident was caused by the power not being shut off when the block reached the carriage of the crane, so that the cable broke and the block fell. Both parties were within the provisions of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act of 1911.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Master and servant, \u00a7 690 \u2014 when evidence shows that ma-~ chinery is known to he dangerous hy officers of corporation. Evidence held to show that machinery, consisting of a crane operated on an overhead track by electrical power to carry a block for lifting heavy material, was dangerous and so known to the elective officers of defendant corporation, in an-action under the Health and Safety Act, sec. 1 (J. & A. jf 5386), to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by defendant\u2019s employee.\n2. Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, \u00a7 6* \u2014 what constitutes intentional failure to safeguard machinery giving right of action at law to employee. Evidence held sufficient to warrant the finding that defendant\u2019s failure to safeguard its machinery was intentional, within the meaning of section 3 of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act of 1911 (J. & A. jf 5451), providing that, when an injury is caused by the intentional failure to comply with statutory safety regulations an employee under the act may maintain an action at law, where a violation of section 1 of the Health and Safety Act (J. & A. If 5386) was established and the president of defendant, the immediate superior of the master mechanic,' was in the shop where the machinery was located and near it every day arid sometimes three or four times a day, and one of defendant\u2019s directors was there every day.\n3. Master and servant, \u00a7 158* \u2014 what constitutes violation of statute relative to safeguarding machinery. Failure to employ upon dangerous machinery a well-known, simple, practical device which could he readily installed, thereby obviating the danger, constitutes a violation of section 1 of the Health and Safety Act (J. & A. 1i 5386).\nFrank M. Cox and B. J. Fellingham, for appellant.\nBichard J. Finn, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0457-01",
  "first_page_order": 483,
  "last_page_order": 485
}