{
  "id": 869041,
  "name": "Hermann Mueller v. Charles Schwecht",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mueller v. Schwecht",
  "decision_date": "1896-03-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "622",
  "last_page": "623",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "62 Ill. App. 622"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "58 Ill. App. 427",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5088350
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/58/0427-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 Ill. 561",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 Ill. App. 223",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        856605
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/57/0223-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 Ill. App. 497",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5157021
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/60/0497-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 Ill. App. 163",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5120506
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/50/0163-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 Ill. App. 578",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5100513
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/54/0578-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 Ill. App. 304",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5022390
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/40/0304-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 217,
    "char_count": 2701,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.528,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.044348983065606e-08,
      "percentile": 0.42475159748695773
    },
    "sha256": "f8a838fcc7bd46ea992bd0f85e2c07ca597f4ee33c3244bfb108221b6e04ab76",
    "simhash": "1:d243468ad44ed1b8",
    "word_count": 470
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:10:11.174453+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hermann Mueller v. Charles Schwecht."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis is an action on the case by the appellee against the appellant, for injuries which the appellee received from brick falling upon his head from a wall of a building which had been burned out, part of which wall the appellant, by his workmen, was taking down preparatory to rebuilding. The appellant was a mason contractor.\nThe appellee was a carpenter employed at the building. He was injured in going out of a door about twelve feet high and eight wide, opening to the street, above which door laborers employed by the appellant were engaged in tearing down the brick wall.\nThere is an irreconcilable conflict in the testimony as to the kind of scaffold used by the laborers; as to the obstruction of the doorway by debris; as to the laborers and their work being visible from the inside of the building, and when they began throwing down the bricks; but none at all as to the fact that the appellee took no precautions, nor made any investigation as to the safety of using that door.\nThe verdict is upon the theory that in tearing down a building, there is a duty to anticipate and guard against the dangers to which others there employed may be exposed. We have not so understood the law.\nThe demolition of buildings necessitates the falling of materials. Whoever is upon the premises should use some care in going about them to avoid going into danger.\nThere is no evidence that the appellant had any reason to expect that any one would go under the work that was being done.\nThe principles of Angus v. Lee, 40 Ill. App. 304; Clark v. Liston, 54 Ill. App. 578; Funk v. Piper, 50 Ill. App. 163; Campell v. Mullen, 60 Ill. App. 497; Legnard v. Lage, 57 Ill. App. 223; Kammerer v. Gallagher, 58 Ill. 561; Stobba v. Fitzsimmons, 58 Ill. App. 427, and Clark v. Murton, No. 6003 this term, apply to this case, though the circumstances are variant.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rubens & Mott, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Chateaus & Deneen, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hermann Mueller v. Charles Schwecht.\n1. Cake\u2014To Avoid Damages\u2014Demolition of Buildings.\u2014The demolition of buildings necessitates the falling of materials, and persons upon the premises should use care in going about them, to avoid danger.\n2. Demolition of Buildings\u2014Duty of the Owner.\u2014In tearing down a building there is no duty to anticipate and guard against the dangers to which others there employed may be exposed.\nTrespass on tlie Case, for personal injuries. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Jonas Hutchinson, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed March 3, 1896.\nRubens & Mott, attorneys for appellant.\nChateaus & Deneen, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0622-01",
  "first_page_order": 618,
  "last_page_order": 619
}