Case ID: ill-app_182/html/0425-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Baume", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Margaret Noack, Defendant in Error, v. Rudolph Wosslick, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 17,607.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Negligence, § 23
      
      —who are invitees. A person patronizing a summer garden is not a trespasser or a mere licensee but an invitee.
    2. Negligence, § 24*—duty of owner to invitees. Person managing a restaurant and summer garden must exercise reasonable care to make and keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for their proper use by patrons.
    3. Negligence, § 24*—liability for unsafe condition of premises. Operator and manager of summer garden held liable for injuries sustained by a woman patron where the injuries resulted from the unsafe condition of a platform on which she stepped while attempting to go to the women’s retiring room.
    4. Negligence, § 250*—when error in instruction harmless. Instruction that it is the duty of defendant to exercise ordinary care to preserve and keep his place in a reasonably safe condition for his patrons and visitors, held, not to harm defendant because of the use of the word “visitors,” in a case in which the plaintiff was an invitee.
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edwin K. Walked, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 15, 1913.
    Rehearing denied October 24, 1913.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Margaret Noack against Rudolph Wosslick to recover for injuries received by plaintiff by reason of defective condition of defendant’s premises. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for two hundred and seventy-five dollars, defendant brings error.
    Harvey E. Wynekoop, for plaintiff in error.
    No appearance for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.