finding support for jury conclusion that defendant knew personnel would ride elevator, because witnesses testified that defendant’s engineer himself rode it, and that workers rode it regularly during his inspections
How later courts described this case
- finding support for jury conclusion that defendant knew personnel would ride elevator, because witnesses testified that defendant’s engineer himself rode it, and that workers rode it regularly during his inspections
- holding that an insurer was liable for personal injuries suffered as a result of the negligent performance of a gratuitous inspection of the premises where the injuries occurred
- holding where an insurer voluntarily undertook to inspect an insured’s boilers, “ ‘the duty arises, with or without contract obligation to inspect, to exercise reasonable care and skill in each inspection so made.’ [Citation.]”
- rejecting defendant's argument that plaintiff was required to produce evidence of expectation or reliance where defendants negligently performed an undertaking rather than omitting to perform an undertaking
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Chisolm v. Stephens, 47 Ill. App. 3d 999 (1977)
Plaintiff cites Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp. (1964), 31 Ill. 2d 69, 199 N.E.2d 769, which is inapposite.
The opinion
Mr. Justice House also dissenting:
I concur in the minority opinion of Mr. Justice Schaefer. Under the stringent rule adopted by the majority no insurer will hereafter dare offer to perform, or perform, limited inspection services for fear of incurring liability. Undoubtedly such services, though limited, have contributed to the safety of workers and prevented economic loss. Sound policy would seem to dictate that the kind of service rendered by this insurer should be encouraged rather than discouraged.