Schwartz v. Gilmore

Citations

• 45 Ill. 455

Syllabus

<p>1. Negligence—controlling principle in actions for. The law which governs in actions for negligence, rests upon the principle, that every person must so use his own property as not to injure his neighbor, and if he fails so to do, through the want of reasonable care or skill on the part of himself, or his servants, he is liable for the injuries thereby sustained.</p> <p>% Same—liability of owner of building—for negligence of -contractor. S., the owner of certain premises, contracted with D. to erect a building thereon, and by the terms of the contract D. was required to perform his work under the supervision and direction of B., the architect, who was declared to be the superintendent of S., S. reserving the right to change the plan of the work. Meld, that S. could not be considered as having surrendered to D. the entire control over the work and premises, so as to relieve himself from liability for injuries occasioned by the negligence of D.</p> <p>3. Same. And in such case, where, before the completion of the building, a portion of the walls fell, whereby an injury was inflicted upon the person and property of a party living adjacent thereto; and, during the morning preceding the night when the accident occurred, the owner was informed that the walls were leaning, and he took no precautions on that day to avert the danger,— held, that his liability for damages could not be made to depend me/rely upon the fact, that, after his attention had been called to the condition of the walls, he did nothing to secure them, unless the danger was so obmous that a prudent man, the safety of whose person and property depended on the security of these walls, would have taken immediate steps to have secured them.</p> <p>4. Same. Nor in such case, could the architect, who was the superintendent of the owner, having control of the work, relieve his principal from liability, by directing the proper bracing to be put in. It was his business to see that it was done.</p>