{
  "id": 5100201,
  "name": "Charles G. Elliott v. John B. Carlson",
  "name_abbreviation": "Elliott v. Carlson",
  "decision_date": "1894-06-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "470",
  "last_page": "470",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "54 Ill. App. 470"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "37 Ill. App. 601",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        859943
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/37/0601-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 Ill. App. 526",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        859851
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/37/0526-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 150,
    "char_count": 1507,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.48,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.181100842601303e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4298233217457852
    },
    "sha256": "d7ae5d77bc34471bbb318792f27424f95a1c8ac8ff7f3540e676aefd6628b981",
    "simhash": "1:fc1442a32a47bb5e",
    "word_count": 270
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:51.601388+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles G. Elliott v. John B. Carlson."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis was an action for damages to the plaintiff arising from his walking off a platform around which there was no railing. It appears from the undisputed evidence in this case that there was no railing around the platform off which appellant walked, and this was open, undisguised, patent to view. Appellant walked over this platform when he went into the house, and if he did not see its condition or was heedless when he came out, it was his own fault.\nIf the stairway was unsafe because of the absence of a railing, appellant should not have used it if he did not care to incur the obvious risk.\nThe rule applicable to this case as to the risk assumed by parties who for their own purposes go upon the premises of others, will be found stated in Chapin & Core v. Walsh, 37 Ill. App. 526, and Gibson, Parish & Co. v. Sziepienski, 37 Ill. App. 601.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John W. Byam and John W. Richey, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Wilson & Zook, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles G. Elliott v. John B. Carlson.\n1. Owner of Premises\u2014Duty to Guard the Same.\u2014The law imposes no duty upon the owner of premises to so guard them that persons who for their own purposes go upon the same shall receive no harm.\nMemorandum.\u2014Action for personal injuries. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard W. Clifford, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1894,\nand affirmed.\nOpinion filed June 18, 1894.\nJohn W. Byam and John W. Richey, attorneys for appellant.\nWilson & Zook, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0470-01",
  "first_page_order": 468,
  "last_page_order": 468
}