Fairbank v. Haentzsche

Citations

• 73 Ill. 236

Syllabus

<p>1. Master and servant—when servant can recover for negligence of master. Where a servant is injured, not by anything occurring in his employment or that is incident thereto, but by a temporary peril to which he and other servants are exposed by the negligent positive act of the employer, without, any negligence on the servant’s part, he is entitled to recover damages from the employer on account of such injury.</p> <p>2. Where a temporary peril is created by the positive'act of an employer, it is not necessary that a servant, in order -to maintain an action for injuries occasioned to him thereby, should have given notice of such temporary peril and demanded its removal.</p> <p>8. Whilst there is no element in the contract of service that the servant shall be protected absolutely from danger, nevertheless the master may not with impunity expose the servant to danger not contemplated in the original employment, or connected therewith.</p> <p>4. Comparative negligence—as between master and servant. Where a servant is employed in a business, and at a place not at all dangerous, and the employer creates a peril at the place where the servant is at work, and the servant, in the performance of his regular duty, has occasion to pass where the peril is, and is guilty of negligence in doing so, and is injured, liis negligence is slight, as compared with the negligence of the employer, wrhich is gross, and the servant will he entitled to recover.</p>