w0Lco’r•r 12. STUDEBAKER. 9
elevator in smooth running order. On such trial trip the elevator was
controlled by the engineer by means of the ropes in the basement. On
the morning of the accident, and just before 7 o’clock, it appeared that
the plaintif and tive other of defendants’ employes got on the elevator
platform in the absence of the elevator boy; that the elevator was started
for a trip up by the engineer in the basement, with no one on the eleva-
tor platform in charge; and there was no evidence that the engineer knew
that anybody was on the elevator. The elevator ran up past the third
floor, where one man jumped off. At the entrance to the elevator shaft
on the third floor, the only protection was a chain stretched across the
opening, about three feet from the floor. Plaintiff testified that before
the elevator reached the fourth fioor where he intended to get off to go
to his work, it stopped. suddenly and began to descend very rapidly; that
somebody on the elevator shouted that it was falling, and plaintiff, be-
lieving that it was falling, attempted to jump off at the third floor, and,
his foot striking the chain stretched across the opening, he was thrown
out upon the iioor on his head and shoulder, and seriously injured.
The elevator in fact did not fall, but was stopped by 0118 of the men on
the platform before it reached the second floor. It was made to appear
further that at the time of the accident there was an ordinance in force
in the city of Chicago which provided as follows: "It shall be the duty
of every person owning, controlling, operating, or using as owner, lessee,
or agent, any passenger or freight elevator in any building within the
corporate limits, to employ some competent person to take charge of and
operate the same; and any such person who shall neglect to comply with
the provisions of this section shall be fined the sum of $10 for each and
every day of such neglect. " Upon the case made on the part of the plain-
tiff, and at the conclusion of his testimony, the defendants moved the
court to instruct the jury to return a verdict in their favor.
E. L. Harpham and S. P. Douthart, for plaintiff.
Flower, Remy do Holstein, for defendants.
DYER, J., (orally.) .Without discussing the question of contributory
negligence, which I am inclined to think would be one for the jury, if
the case were to be submitted to them, I proceed to consider the other
grounds of alleged liability in the case. It is said by counsel for the
plaintiff that the ordinance of the city which made it the duty of the de-
fendants to employ some competent person to take charge of and operate
the elevator in question, fixes upon the defendants, under the facts dis-
closed, a liability to the plaintiff for the injury which he sustained. The
ordinance, it seems to me, simply declares a common-law duty; that is,
that every person owning, controlling, or operating a passenger or freight
elevator shall employ some competent person to take charge of and oper-
ate it. As I understand it, that is precisely the duty which the law, in
the absence of such an ordinance as this, imposes. The law says to every
person who owns, controls, and operates one of these elevators, that he
must employ some person to run it, and that he must exercise all reason-
able care in the selection of a competent person for that purpose. This