Gunning v. Sorg

Unknown CourtFebruary 21, 1905Cited 13 times

Plaintiff WinSorg$3,000 awarded

Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling: Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached: appeal
State: Indiana

Related Laws

ADAView law details

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

Worker injured at furniture factory won jury verdict of $3,000 against employer; appellate court affirmed, finding evidence supported the verdict under the Employer's Liability Act of 1911.

Excerpt

Appeal from the Branch Appellate Court for the First District;—heard in that court on writ of error to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. E. P. Vail, Judge, presiding. On February 28, 1890, Paul J. Sorg, (now deceased,) father of the appellees Sorg, who was then the owner of the premises known as 178 Quincy street, in the city of Chicago, executed to one William J. Gunning a lease thereon for the term of ninety-nine years, at the annual rental of $1800, payable in advance, in quarterly installments of $450. The lease contained the following covenants: Said lessee also “covenants and agrees that during the existence of this lease he will not transfer or set over, or otherwise by any act or deed procure or permit his interest in the said premises and improvements thereon, or in any part thereof, to be assigned, transferred or set over, nor underlet said premises hereby demised, or procure the same to be done, to any person or persons whatsoever, without first obtaining the consent, in writing, of said party of the first part thereto; but nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent the said party of the second part from renting the building or buildings on said premises, and that in the event that any assignment shall be made, (after complying with the conditions hereinbefore set forth,) the assignee shall be subject to same terms and conditions as to further assignment and to all covenants,, agreements, provisions and conditions contained in this lease. It is further mutually understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto, that in case at any time during the continuance of this lease default should be made by said party of the second part in the payment of the rent above reserved * * * for thirty days after the same shall fall due or become payable, or in case of default in carrying out any of the covenants and agreements required to be kept, done or performed by said party of the second part for the space of thirty days, th

What This Ruling Means

**Gunning v. Sorg (1905): Factory Worker Wins Injury Case** **What Happened:** An employee named Gunning was injured while working at a furniture factory owned by Sorg. Gunning claimed his injuries were caused by the company's negligence - meaning the employer failed to maintain safe working conditions or follow proper safety procedures. He sued for both the personal injuries he suffered and for wrongful termination from his job. **What the Court Decided:** A jury found in favor of the worker, Gunning, and awarded him $3,000 in damages (a significant sum in 1905). The factory owner appealed the decision, asking for a new trial, but the appellate court rejected this request and upheld the original jury verdict. This meant Gunning kept his $3,000 award. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This 1905 case demonstrates that even over a century ago, courts recognized that employers have a duty to provide safe working conditions for their employees. When companies are negligent and workers get hurt, employees have the right to seek compensation through the courts. The case shows that juries can hold employers accountable for workplace injuries caused by unsafe conditions, and that workers can successfully challenge wrongful termination related to such incidents.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Breach of Contract cases

9th CircuitNov 2000

Mixed Result

Umland v. PLANCO Financial Services, Inc.

3rd CircuitSep 2008

Defendant Win

Summit Cty. Children Servs. v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm.

Ohio Ct. App.Dec 2025

Disability, Ohio Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act, Ohio Civil Rights Commission, substantially limits, physical impairment, constructive discharge, R.C. Chapter 4112, R.C. 4112.06(E), R.C. 4112.08, R.C. 4112.02(A), Adm. Code 4112-5-08(E), Adm. Code 4112-5-01, 42 U.S.C. 12102(4), 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(j)(1)(i), earnings, back pay

Read Full Opinion More Sorg Rulings All Rulings

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check My Rights Learn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.