{
  "id": 2450593,
  "name": "Michael Poznanski v. John Szczech",
  "name_abbreviation": "Poznanski v. Szczech",
  "decision_date": "1897-06-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "670",
  "last_page": "671",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "71 Ill. App. 670"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 192,
    "char_count": 2937,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.525,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.23224522050227e-08,
      "percentile": 0.32978795288837304
    },
    "sha256": "6e27aeeb5abb33df832ad4bb058583f40d03029edb4e4cd026a5e233a2b800cc",
    "simhash": "1:3d472cad442bc39c",
    "word_count": 511
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:20:26.715064+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Michael Poznanski v. John Szczech."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\n. \"From various cases cited by the appellant we- infer that for failure by an appellee\u2014as in this case\u2014to file briefs, the Appellate Courts in some of the other districts will sometimes reverse judgments. This, however, is done under rules, and this court has no such rule.\n' There is no doubt of the exact ciscumstances under which the appellant sustained injuries for which he sued the appellee. They were both carpenters, and the appellant worked for the appellee. The appellee built a scaffold alongside of a house, the supports of the scaffold not being braced outside of the house. The appellant was at work upon it and it fell with the weight of lumber piled, and of another workman climbing upon it.\nThe fact that the scaffold was not braced was as obvious \u2022to the appellant as to the appellee, and both being carpenters, they were presumptively equally capable of judging as to the sufficiency of it.\nThe appellant makes no complaint of the instructions, and the verdict was right upon the facts. By a succession of misfortunes the appellant was prevented from attending at the trial, and if his testimony could have put any different face upon the facts, a new trial should have been granted. It is not claimed that his testimony could have had such effect.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Morgenstern & Dickison, attorneys for appellant.",
      "No appearance for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Michael Poznanski v. John Szczech.\n1. Appellate Court Practioe\u2014Failure of an Appellee to File Briefs as Ground for Reversal.\u2014For a failure by an appellee to file briefs, the Appellate Courts in some of the districts will sometimes reverse judgments. This, however, is done Under rules, and there is no such rule in this (the first) district.\n3. Negligence\u2014Verdict as to, Sustained.\u2014A carpenter built a scaffold at the side of a house, but did not brace the supports, and while another carpenter was at work upon it, it fell and he was injured. In a suit to recover damages for the injuries received, it was shown that the fact that the scaffold was not braced was as obvious to the plaintiff as to the defendant; and that both were carpenters, and, presumably, equally capable of judging as to its sufficiency. Held, on appeal, that a verdict in favor of the defendant was right on the facts.\n3. New Trials\u2014On Account of the Inability of a Party toAttendthe Trial. \u2014Where, by a succession of misfortunes, a party was prevented from attending the trial of his case, it was held, that if upon a proper showing his testimony would have put a different light upon the facts, he would have been entitled to a new trial, and that no such showing having been made, a new trial was properly refused.\nTrespass on the Case, for personal injuries. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Charles G-. Neely, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1897.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 14, 1897.\nMorgenstern & Dickison, attorneys for appellant.\nNo appearance for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0670-01",
  "first_page_order": 668,
  "last_page_order": 669
}