{
  "id": 5170547,
  "name": "Thomas Clark et al. v. Peter Murton",
  "name_abbreviation": "Clark v. Murton",
  "decision_date": "1896-03-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "49",
  "last_page": "50",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 Ill. App. 49"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "50 Ill. App. 100",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5119055
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/50/0100-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 212,
    "char_count": 2209,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.531,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.930260642917817e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3096029922980066
    },
    "sha256": "c612502a8ac2874263dc645193193ec655e565d827529ef87b7cc752329eea42",
    "simhash": "1:d4237582687b9dbc",
    "word_count": 399
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:54:49.987215+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Thomas Clark et al. v. Peter Murton."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellee\u2019s own version of this case defeats him. He was a carpenter working for the appellants most of the time, in a second story in their shop,' for twenty months.\nHear his bench, during all the time, was an opening in the floor about two and a half by three feet, with a loose cover. Through that opening lumber ivas taken up several times each day, the appellee sometimes assisting, and sometimes himself removing the cover.\nAnybody who wanted lumber up, removed the cover.\nIt had become customary to him to pay little attention to the opening.\nThe only account he could give of how he received the injury for which he sues, is that he did not know that the hole was open and he fell through.\nHo witness adds to that account anything more favorable to his case.\nThe shop was well lighted. It is clear that his injury is the result of his own inattention, thoughtlessness, heedlessness\u2014whatever name may be given to that state of mind which doubtless comes to most people at times of temporary obliviousness to surroundings. Whether a boy in the shop Avho Avorlced part of the time as a carpenter and part of the time as a laborer, was the one Avho remoATed the cover, and Avhether he called to the appellee to look out, are not matters material to the case. It is not Avhat others did, but Avhat the appellee did not do\u2014that is, attend to his own safety\u2014that prevents any recovery of damages. C. & N. W. Ry. v. Kane, 50 Ill. App. 100.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Schuyler & Kremer, attorneys for appellants.",
      "Remy & Mann, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Thomas Clark et al. v. Peter Murton.\n1. Personal Injuries\u2014 Want of Ordinary Care.\u2014Where a party by the exercise of ordinary care can ascertain and avoid a pending danger, or where he knows of the existence of danger, it is not only his duty to avoid such danger, but he is not in the exercise of ordinary care when he fails to do so.\nTrespass on the Case, for personal injuries. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Nathaniel C. Sears, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed March 3, 1896.\nSchuyler & Kremer, attorneys for appellants.\nRemy & Mann, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0049-01",
  "first_page_order": 45,
  "last_page_order": 46
}