Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kaminsky v. Arthur Rubloff & Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided June 17, 1966No. Gen. 50,640Published

1DissentEnglish, J.

Regardless of plaintiff’s understanding (obviously mistaken) that when the indicator light was out the elevator cab would be at the lobby floor, it was nevertheless his duty to exercise ordinary care in opening the door and entering the elevator shaft.

Plaintiff testified that at the time in question he was returning from a company Christmas party; that he did not know whether the elevator was present at the lobby floor; that he knew the elevator was quite frequently used after hours by “the people at the Pierce Electric Company” on another upper floor; that he did not look through the window…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hull v. Bishop-Stoddard CafeteriaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1947
  2. Johnson v. VassAppellate Court of Illinois · 1961

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API