Court Opinion

ID: 9528277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:39:13.425037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:31.168512
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE CRAVEN concurring in part and dissenting in part: The action of plaintiff’s counsel in reading extensively to the jury certain portions of the ordinances of the city of Chicago and certain sections of the Structural Work Act was improper and prejudicial, and in my view leaves this court with no alternative but to reverse and remand this case for a new trial. Accordingly, I agree with the result reached in the majority opinion. I must respectfully note my disagreement, however, with that portion of the opinion that holds that the Structural Work Act is not applicable. As I understand the Structural Work Act and the many cases interpreting it, it is designed to give protection to persons, not necessarily only construction workmen, in and about construction, alteration or demolition of buildings. The plaintiff here was not working in connection with the specific alteration on the premises but she was a worker on the premises and was injured by reason of a faulty barricade around a hole, and thus the Act has application. See: John Griffiths & Son Co. v. National Fireproofing Co., 310 Ill 331, 141 NE 739, 38 ALR 559 (1923); Claffy v. Chicago Dock & Canal Co., 249 Ill 210, 94 NE 551, affd 228 US 680, 57 L Ed 1022, 33 S Ct 715 (1911). The majority opinion, likewise, notes that the hoist or dumbwaiter was not being used for the purpose of elevating materials in the construction but was part of the structure itself, thus seemingly stating that a permanent part of a structure is not within the purview of the Structural Work Act. The majority so held in Parizon v. Granite City Steel Co., 71 Ill App2d 53, 218 NE2d 27 (5th Dist 1966). For the reasons stated in my dissent in that case I cannot agree with the majority here. In Louis v. Barenfanger, 39 Ill2d 445, 236 NE2d 724, cert denied, 393 US 935, 21 L Ed2d 271, 89 S Ct 296 (1968), the Illinois Supreme Court held that a permanent structure used as a stay or temporary support is not excluded from the Act even though it is a permanent part of the structure. We are here concerned with the alteration of a building to construct a device to hoist or convey work products from the first floor of a cottage used in manufacturing to the basement. In connection with this alteration a hole or opening had been cut into the floor, and the evidence indicates that it was approximately 27 x 20 inches. The evidence further indicates that there was some plywood on one side, and on another to which employees on the floor had ready access, there was a barricade of sorts consisting of a piece of lumber, apparently a one-by-six, about three feet from the floor, attached to two uprights. There was nothing between this one-by-six and the floor. If, as the court held in Louis, the failure to provide scaffolding can be the basis of a cause of action under the Structural Work Act, the failure to provide adequate and safe barricades around a hole in the floor during the alteration of a structure can likewise be a violation of the Act. Accordingly, while I concur in the result reached, I dissent from that portion of the opinion which, in my view, construes the Structural Work Act contrary to its intended purpose.