Legal Opinion · Dissent

Zebell v. Saufnauer

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided October 23, 1962No. Gen. 48,458Published

1DissentBryant, P. J.

The majority opinion sounds in the proposition that the plaintiff knew or should have known that the drain spout was not permanently attached and that for this reason he followed an improper course of conduct by resting his weight upon it while in the process of painting it. In other words, without saying so in so many words, my colleagues on the bench appear to be saying that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. There is a great deal made of the fact that he knew that the defendant had not finished his part of the contract; that he knew that the drain spout had been moved…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Purtell v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Ziraldo v. W. J. Lynch Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Lisle v. AndersonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
  4. Pettyjohn & Sons v. BashamSupreme Court of Virginia · 1919
  5. Ellguth v. Blackstone Hotel, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1951

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API