{
  "id": 5101049,
  "name": "David M. Hart v. Washington Park Club",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hart v. Washington Park Club",
  "decision_date": "1894-06-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "480",
  "last_page": "482",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "54 Ill. App. 480"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "51 N. Y. 497",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "case_ids": [
        2061528
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ny/51/0497-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Mo. App. 370",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mo. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        521882
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mo-app/38/0370-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 Wis. 432",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wis.",
      "case_ids": [
        8709045
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wis/22/0432-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "134 N. Y. 418",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "case_ids": [
        2252967
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ny/134/0418-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill. App. 97",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5070846
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/44/0097-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill. App. 27",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5066533
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/44/0027-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 292",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y. Sup. Ct.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 N. Y. 408",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "case_ids": [
        546268
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ny/86/0408-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Hun, 46",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hun,",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Am. Rep. 530",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "Am. Rep.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 N. Y. 568",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 Fed. Rep. 914",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.",
      "case_ids": [
        6723395
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f/48/0914-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 Ill. 486",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5806944
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/140/0486-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 Ill. 234",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2602866
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/49/0234-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 Ill. App. 349",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5004165
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/35/0349-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 406,
    "char_count": 4686,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.0011153170616546e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3144013415453951
    },
    "sha256": "a3dba8e5d7d7c39cf70c4dce24f6a1a881397ed645bf5d2e50272f11a6f19642",
    "simhash": "1:3cb3626368b992b0",
    "word_count": 818
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:51.601388+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "David M. Hart v. Washington Park Club."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion or the Court.\nThe declaration of the appellant is as follows:\n\u201c For that, whereas, heretofore, on the day commonly known as Derby Day, on, to wit, the 25th day of June, 1893, said defendant in said county, on the certain race course then and there in its possession, gave and conducted a public exhibition of horse racing and thereto invited the public at large, charging and receiving an admission fee, plaintiff paid said fee and attended said exhibition, and was then and there, and at all times thereabouts, in the exercise of all reasonable and ordinary care, and lawfully in and upon the ground in defendant\u2019s possession and control, set aside by defendant for the use of the spectators at said races, and plaintiff alleges that it then and there became, and was the duty of defendant to use all reasonable and ordinary care to keep said grounds in a reasonably safe and suitable condition for said spectators, and therein defendant made default, and so carelessly and negligently kept said grounds, that a horse drawing a vehicle, ran unguarded, unattended and unhindered, from a cause or causes which, upon diligent inquiry, plaintiff has not been able to learn, but which are to defendant well known, through and among the spectators, and in so doing ran upon and against the plaintiff, hereby,\u201d etc.\nOn demurrer final judgment was rendered for the appellee, and from that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.\nWe know nothing judicially of the arrangements for the accommodation of spectators at horse races. If the horses run around upon a road separating an inner inclosure from an outer one, and if within the inner inclosure are spectators, some on foot, and some in carriages, it is not apparent how the proprietors of the race course could hold the horses of the spectators. In the nature of things some, one in charge of any carriage would be also in charge of the horse or horses attached. Unless it be negligence to admit at all spectators in carriages, which, we suppose, would not be contended, there could be no neglect charged upon the appellee because a horse ran away.\nThe description in the declaration of a race course and what happens there, is not sufficient to show any duty of the appellee, and the averment of duty is idle. Angus v. Lee, 40. Ill. App. 304.\nUegligence by omission can only be where a duty is not performed. C. & W. I. v. Roath, 35 Ill. App. 349.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Appellant\u2019s Brief, Rosenthal & Hirschl, Attorneys.",
      "Cratty Bros., Jarvis & Cleveland, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "David M. Hart v. Washington Park Club.\n1. Negligence\u2014By Omission.\u2014Negligence by omission can only exist where a duty is not performed.\nMemorandum.\u2014Action for personal injuries. Appeal from the Circuit Court \u00f3f Cook County; the Hon. Frank Baker, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1894,\nand affirmed.\nOpinion filed June 18, 1894.\nAppellant\u2019s Brief, Rosenthal & Hirschl, Attorneys.\nIf the court rejects the maxim res ipsa loquitur it will be like setting a premium upon negligence, and exposing the helpless public without redress to an untold number of dangers. We find the maxim explained and applied (without reference now to railroad cases, such as I. C. R. R. v. Phillips, 49 Ill. 234) in the following, among other cases:\nIt applies \u201c even where no special relation like that of passenger and carrier exists between the parties,\u201d North C. S. R. Co. v. Cotton, 140 Ill. 486.\nEmploye injured by breaking of the winch of a windlass at which he was working. Hamilton v. Branfoot, 48 Fed. Rep. 914.\nBuilding falls upon a passer-by. Mullen v. St. John, 57 N. Y. 568 (15 Am. Rep. 530).\nA box falls while being hoisted. Lyons v. Rosenthal, 11 Hun, 46.\nA berth in a steamboat falls. Smith v. British Packet Co., 86 N. Y. 408.\nAn elevator falls upon plaintiff. Gerlach v. Edelmeyer, 47 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 292.\nPacking cases fall upon the plaintiff. Briggs v. Oliver, 4 Hurlst. & Colt. 407.\nA boiler explodes and inj ares a person lawfully present who sustains no relation of employment or duty to the person controlling the boiler. John Morris Co. v. Burgess, 44 Ill. App. 27.\nA coach is upset and injures a passenger. Payne v. Halstead, 44 Ill. App. 97.\nA piece of iron falls from an elevated railroad track. Volkmar v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 134 N. Y. 418-31, N. E. Rep. 870.\nAn omnibus horse kicks a passenger; the owner has burden of proof to explain the reason and show absence of negligence. Simpson v. The London, etc., Co. Law Reports, 8 Com. Pleas 390 (6 Moak, 173).\nNegligence is presumed from horse running unattended. Its owner should explain. Strup v. Edens, 22 Wis. 432; Hill v. Scott, 38 Mo. App. 370; Unger v. 42d Street, etc., Co., 51 N. Y. 497.\nCratty Bros., Jarvis & Cleveland, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0480-01",
  "first_page_order": 478,
  "last_page_order": 480
}