{
  "id": 5816318,
  "name": "Barbara Klomp, Administratrix, Appellee, v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Klomp v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1918-04-29",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,658",
  "first_page": "375",
  "last_page": "377",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 Ill. App. 375"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 281,
    "char_count": 4077,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.627102438786559e-08,
      "percentile": 0.35172880735517786
    },
    "sha256": "d82a07bacef0d6a20b445664cb7d1a44e8c3d6385be690cef8aa6ecf97936147",
    "simhash": "1:ceb7c3d6bc806538",
    "word_count": 698
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:15:15.348169+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Barbara Klomp, Administratrix, Appellee, v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n5. Master and servant, \u00a7 110*\u2014when act of employee in picking up live wire cannot reasonably be guarded against by employer. A master cannot reasonably anticipate or guard against the act of an .experienced engineer in its employ, who has good health and good eyesight and is warned by his associates, in picking up an electric wire which is evidently and visibly \u201clive.\u201d\n6. Master and servant, \u00a7 579 \u2014when burden of showing that employee picked up live wire to save others is on plaintiff. Where an experienced engineer, contrary to the warnings of his associates, picks up an electric wire which is obviously \u201clive,\u201d the burden of showing that he did so to save others who were exposed to danger by the wire is on the plaintiff, in an action to recover for the engineer\u2019s death.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "O. W. Dynes and Carl S. Jefferson, for appellant; H. H. Field, of counsel.",
      "Charles C. Spencer, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Barbara Klomp, Administratrix, Appellee, v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,658.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. David F. Matchett, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1917.\nReversed with finding of fact.\nOpinion filed April 29, 1918.\nRehearing denied May 13, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Barbara Klomp, administratrix of the estate of William Klomp, deceased, plaintiff, against Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Bailway Company and Commonwealth Edison Company, defendants, to recover for the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate. The Edison Company was found not guilty under an instruction of the court. From a judgment for plaintiff for $5,000 against defendant Railway Company, the latter appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Commerce, \u00a7 4 \u2014when stationary engineer not engaged in interstate. An engineer in charge of the operation of a steam crane which is used for hoisting concrete and pouring it into forms for a retaining wall and for shifting the forms, the retaining wall forming a support for material used to elevate a part of a track in a city\u2019s limits over which passes a division of a railroad which connects with other divisions of the railroad running into other States, is not engaged in interstate commerce so as to come under the Federal Employers\u2019 Liability Act.\n2. Master and servant, \u00a7 110*\u2014when negligence of employer in requiring employee to operate crane near electric wires not proximate cause of death of employee 6y shock. The negligence of an employer in requiring an employee to operate a crane so near electric wires as to bring it in contact with the wires is not the proximate cause of his death, where it appears that an electric wire was broken by coming in contact with the crane cable and that after the wire had fallen, against the warning of his fellow employees and while it was clear that it was a \u201clive\u201d wire, he picked it up and held it, though there was no emergency or danger to others requiring him to do so, and received- a shock which killed him.\n3. Negligence, \u00a7 196*\u2014when proximate cause question for court. While the question of what is proximate cause is, ordinarily, for the jury, whether there is any evidence tending to show that the negligence charged was the proximate cause is a question of law.\n4. Master and servant, \u00a7 110*\u2014when negligence not proximate cause of death of employee. If the negligence complained of, in an action for the death of an employee, merely furnished a condition by which the injury was possible and a subsequent independent act caused the injury, the existence of the condition was not the proximate cause of the injury, and if the act which was the immediate cause of the injury was such as in the exercise of reasonable diligence would not be anticipated, the first act or omission was not the proximate cause of the injury.\nO. W. Dynes and Carl S. Jefferson, for appellant; H. H. Field, of counsel.\nCharles C. Spencer, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vola. 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": "0375-01",
  "first_page_order": 401,
  "last_page_order": 403
}
