City of Chicago v. Mclean

Decision Date14 May 1890
Citation133 Ill. 148,24 N.E. 527
PartiesCITY OF CHICAGO v. McLEAN.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from appellate court, first distirct.

Geo. F. Sugg and Charles S. Cameron, (Wm. E. Hughes, of counsel,) for appellant.

Frederick Peake, (James Frake, of counsel,) for appellee.

MAGRUDER, J.

This is an action of case commenced by the appellee against the appellant in the circuit court of Cook county on March 13, 1888, to recover damages for a personal injury. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, which judgment has been affirmed by the appellate court. The cause is brought here by appeal from the appellate court.

The declaration avers, in substance, that the city wrongfully and negligently suffered the sidewalk of Hermitage avenue to be and remain in an unsafe and dangerous condition; that a part of the sidewalk, about four feet in length, had been ‘torn down,’ or the sidewalk had never been built, so as to extend over said space of four feet in length, as it should have been, and would have been, had the sidewalk been complete; that such space was open and uncovered, except by one plank laid length wise with the sidewalk, across said open space, which plank was loose and insecure; that in the evening of March 15, 1886, plaintiff was passing along said sidewalk, it being then dark, and there being a driving snow-storm; that, while plaintiff was using all due care to prevent injury to herself, she stepped into said open space, and fell to the ground, and was injured, etc. The facts are settled by the judgment of the appellate court.

Appellant complains of an instruction given by the trial court, which told the jury that if they found the defendant guilty, and that plaintiff had sustained damages by reason of the injury, they had a right, in estimating such damages, to ‘take into consideration all the facts and circumstances in evidence before them; the nature and effect of the plaintiff's physical injuries, if any, shown by the evidence to have been sustained from the cause alleged in the declaration; her suffering in body and mind, if any, resulting from such injuries,’ etc. The part of the instruction which is particularly objected to is that which allows damages for ‘suffering in mind.’ The instruction here complained of is substantially the same as the fifth instruction in Railroad Co. v. Martin, 111 Ill. 219, which was held to be good. In that case we said: ‘Where suffering in body and mind is the result of injuries caused by negligence, it is proper to take it into consideration in estimating the amount of damages.’ The decision in the Martin Case is conclusive upon the point here made, and we must hold that the instruction given by the trial court was not erroneous.

Upon her direct examination plaintiff was asked this question: ‘How has your mind been since that time,-your faculties?’ to which she answered as follows: ‘Very poor; very different from what it was before.’ An objection to this question and answer by defendant's counsel was overruled, and exception was taken. Counsel for appellant urge, as a reason why their objection should have been sustained, that the effect of the injury upon the plaintiff's mind was matter of special damage, and should have been specially pleaded in the declaration. In the first place, the language of the declaration is broad enough to cover such effect upon the mind as may have resulted from the injury to the body. It is averred that plaintiff ‘suffered great pain and agony.’ ‘Agony’ has been defined to be violent pain of body or mind. In the second place, the plaintiff is always entitled to recover all damages which are the natural and proximate consequence of the act complained of; and those damages which necessarily result from the injury are termed ‘general,’ and may be shown under the general allegations of the declaration. Only those damages which are not the necessary result of the injury are termed ‘special,’ and required to be stated specially in the declaration. Coal Co. v. Hood, 77 Ill. 68. But the body and mind are so intimately connected that the mind is very often directly and necessarily affected by physical injury. There cannot be severe physical pain without a certain amount of mental suffering. The mind, unless it is so overpowered that consciousness is destroyed, takes cognizance of physical pain, and must be more or less affected thereby. Railroad Co. v. Stables, 62 Ill. 313. We do not understand that the instruction, or the admitted proof in this case...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • Denver & R.G.R. Co. v. Roller
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • February 5, 1900
    ... ... The ... plaintiff in error had an office in the city of San ... Francisco. Upon the windows of this office were signs which ... read, 'Denver & Rio ... Ehrgott v. City of New ... York, 96 N.Y. 265, 277; City of Chicago v ... McLean, 133 Ill. 149, 153, 24 N.E. 527; Montgomery ... v. Railway Co., 103 Mich. 47, ... ...
  • Western Union Tel. Co. v. Wood
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • May 30, 1893
    ... ... Enc. Law, p. 42, note 2; Pierce, R. R. 302; ... Railroad Co. v. Stables, 62 Ill. 320; City of ... Chicago v. McLean, 133 Ill. 148, 24 N. E. Rep. 527; ... Trigg v. Railroad Co., 74 Mo ... ...
  • Allen v. Otis Elevator Co.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 28, 1990
    ... ... 700] McKenna, Storer, Rowe, White & Farrug, Chicago" (James P. DeNardo, Perry C. Rocco, Christine L. Olson, of counsel), for defendant-appellant ... \xC2" ... (E.g. Cutright v. City National Bank of Kankakee (1980), 88 Ill.App.3d 742, 44 Ill.Dec. 50, 410 N.E.2d 1142; Carlinville ... 313; Hannibal & St. J. R.R. Co. v. Martin (1884), 111 Ill. 219; City of Chicago v. McLean (1890), 133 Ill. 148, 24 N.E. 527; Chicago, B. & Q. R.R. v. Hines (1892), 45 Ill.App. 299.) The ... ...
  • Downers Grove Volkswagen, Inc. v. Wigglesworth Imports, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • October 23, 1989
    ...necessary consequence of the compensable injury alleged." 22 Am.Jur.2d Damages § 825, at 870-71 (1988). See also City of Chicago v. McLean (1890), 133 Ill. 148, 24 N.E. 527. In this case, though plaintiff's allegation of damages is far from an exemplary model of Illinois pleading, it appear......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT