Hunt v. Hoyt
Illinois Supreme Court
A person injured by reason of such negligence may recover for the length of time the sickness continued, as a component part of her claim.
Read the full summary
A person injured by reason of such negligence may recover for the length of time the sickness continued, as a component part of her claim. This was an action on the case, brought by Hoyt and his wife against Hunt, to the September term, 1857, of the Cook County Court of Common Pleas, for an alleged injury to the wife, by the falling of a hammer from a building in the city of Chicago, upon which the defendant’s servants were putting up a sign, and striking Mrs. Hoyt upon the head while walking along the street of said city. The declaration contains two counts, and alleges that'Martha Ann Hoyt,…
1Opinion of the CourtBreese, J.
Three points are made by the counsel for appellant: First. That the men engaged in putting up the sign, were employed by, and were the servants of Fisk & Ripley, and not of the appellant.
Second. If the appellant is to be regarded as the master of these workmen, then he would be liable only for a want of ordinary care, or for gross negligence.
Third. That positive proof of negligence must be produced by the plaintiff. And that proof of the accident and injury is not sufficient to show negligence, nor can it be inferred from the fact of the accident or injury.
The first point is disposed of by…
2Cited by5 opinions
- City of Chicago v. MartinIllinois Supreme Court · 1868
- Angus v. LeeAppellate Court of Illinois · 1891
- Bochat v. KniselyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1908
- Torres ex rel. Torres v. Rubert y CataláDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1913
- Youmans v. PaddenCircuit Court of the 48th Circuit of Michigan · 1870