{ "id": 5009122, "name": "Capitol Dairy Company, Appellee, v. All States Auto Body Builders, Inc., Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Capitol Dairy Co. v. All States Auto Body Builders, Inc.", "decision_date": "1950-01-19", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 44,807", "first_page": "395", "last_page": "398", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "339 Ill. App. 395" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "315 Ill. App. 278", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5647456 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/315/0278-01" ] }, { "cite": "336 Ill. App. 423", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2424748 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/336/0423-01" ] }, { "cite": "337 Ill. App. 434", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5016085 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/337/0434-01" ] }, { "cite": "328 Ill. 269", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5196920 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/328/0269-01" ] }, { "cite": "346 Ill. 140", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5264978 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/346/0140-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 267, "char_count": 3385, "ocr_confidence": 0.529, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.779090493198755e-08, "percentile": 0.3608082942287369 }, "sha256": "813c37f0bf6a8e3d20faa165040e3c5e20086970e73a9c88634cfc5101dfa5a3", "simhash": "1:837d0cdc1c4fe83c", "word_count": 576 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:59:04.256225+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Capitol Dairy Company, Appellee, v. All States Auto Body Builders, Inc., Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Lews\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nDefendant appeals from a judgment in the sum of $767.50 entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of plaintiff for damage to one of its trucks caused by a fire while the truck was at defendant\u2019s shop for repairs.\nThe evidence discloses that in August 1946, plaintiff delivered one of its milk trucks to defendant for reconditioning. Among the repairs made by defendant was the installation of lining and insulation. September 17, 1946, one of defendant\u2019s employees welded a new steel floor plate in the truck. This was done about three o\u2019clock p. m. No one worked on the truck in question thereafter.\nAbout six o \u2019clock p. m. September 17, 1946, defendant\u2019s shop was closed and about eleven o\u2019clock p. m. of the same day Mr. Miller, president of defendant company, was notified that there was a fire in his establishment. At the time of the fire there were eight or nine other trucks in defendant\u2019s premises.\nAccording to the testimony of Miller no other trucks were burned, \u201cthe fire centered around the back of this truck,\u201d and \u201cnothing was burned in the shop, just this truck. \u2019 \u2019\nDefendant contends that there is no evidence of negligence on its part. The existence of the relationship of bailor and bailee at the time of the fire is uncontroverted. Nor is it. disputed that plaintiff established a prima facie case of negligence and damage to the truck while it was in the possession of defendant. Since plaintiff made out a prima facie case, the burden of proceeding shifted to defendant. (Lederer v. Railway Terminal & Warehouse Co., 346 Ill. 140; Byalos v. Matheson, 328 Ill. 269; Kammerer v. Graymont Hotel Corp., 337 Ill. App. 434; Hollingshead Motors Co. v. Crogan, 336 Ill. App. 423.)\nDefendant says that the fire broke out about five hours after the shop was closed and that the cause of the fire was unknown. There is no evidence tending to show when the fire started. It is admitted by defendant that plaintiff\u2019s truck was the only one burned and that it occurred in that part of the truck where one of defendant\u2019s employees had been welding earlier in the day. No evidence was offered by defendant to show what kind of welding equipment was used or how much heat it generated, nor does it appear that all combustible material was removed, whether the premises were securely locked, or other precautions taken to guard the premises. In order to discharge itself from liability under such circumstances a bailee must show that the loss occurred without its fault, and whether it has met this burden is a question of fact for the jury to determine. (Lederer v. Railway Terminal & Warehouse Co., 346 Ill. 140.)\nFrom a careful reading of the record we cannot say that all reasonable minds would agree that defendant has shown that degree of care required in the instant case to absolve it from liability. (Brenton v. Sloan\u2019s United Storage & Van Co., 315 Ill. App. 278.)\nFor the reasons assigned, the judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nBurke and Kilby, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Lews" } ], "attorneys": [ "Clare J. Murphy and T. F. Sullivan, both of Chicago, for appellant.", "Goldman, Allshouse & Healy, of Chicago, for appellee; Selwyn Coleman, of Chicago, of counsel." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Capitol Dairy Company, Appellee, v. All States Auto Body Builders, Inc., Appellant.\nGen. No. 44,807.\nOpinion filed January 19, 1950.\nReleased for publication February 21, 1950.\nClare J. Murphy and T. F. Sullivan, both of Chicago, for appellant.\nGoldman, Allshouse & Healy, of Chicago, for appellee; Selwyn Coleman, of Chicago, of counsel." }, "file_name": "0395-01", "first_page_order": 417, "last_page_order": 420 }