The City of Chicago v. Powers

• Decision Date: 30 April 1866
• Citation: 1866 WL 2630,89 Am.Dec. 418,42 Ill. 169
• Parties: THE CITY OF CHICAGOv.MARGARET POWERS, Administratrix.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

42 Ill. 169

1866 WL 2630 (Ill.)

89 Am.Dec. 418

THE CITY OF CHICAGO

v.MARGARET POWERS, Administratrix.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April Term, 1866.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. E. S. WILLIAMS, Judge, presiding.

This was an action on the case brought by Margaret Powers, as administratrix of Mary Powers, deceased, against the city of Chicago, to recover damages resulting from the death of the said Mary Powers, alleged to have been occasioned by the neglect of the city.

It is averred in the declaration, that the deceased left surviving and next of kin, only her mother, the plaintiff, and a brother seven years of age.

The circumstances attending the death of the intestate, upon which a recovery is sought, as well as so much of the evidence as presents the questions involved, are set forth in the opinion of the court.

Mr. S. A. IRVIN, for the appellant, upon the principal question involved in the case, contended that the city has no power to provide lights for the bridges within its limits, and therefore it is not liable for accidents which may happen on account of the absence of such lights.

Counsel contended that whatever the city does in the premises, is voluntary, not compulsory. It need not do any thing in that direction. It does not follow, therefore, because it undertook to do something, which, however feeble, did not, and could not increase any alleged or supposed danger, arising from want of sufficient lights, but which must necessarily have diminished any such real or imaginary danger, it is liable. In other words, not having any power to light the bridges, whatever it did to light them, will not make it liable, unless such action, on its part, increased or contributed to the danger.

Mr. JOHN LYLE KING, for the appellee.

It is claimed that the city has no power to light the bridges. It would be enough to say that it has undertaken to do so, and its voluntary undertakings must be well performed. Ludlow v. The City of Yonkers, 43 Barb. 493. But it has the power. A public bridge, in a street, is part of the street,--is the street. A bridge is as much a highway as the street, and those principles of the common law which relate to highways in general are applicable to bridges. Angell on Highways, § 40. It is no difference whether the structure is one to cover a ditch or to span a stream--if it is in the street, it is part of the street. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action on the case brought by Margaret Powers, administratrix of Mary Powers, deceased, against the city of Chicago, in the Cook Circuit Court. The action was brought to recover damages claimed to have accrued from negligence of the city, which produced the death of intestate. It appears that the city, on the 18th of October, 1865, and prior thereto, maintained a bridge, with its appurtenances, across the Chicago river, connecting north and south Clark street; that the bridge is so constructed as to swing on its center, so as to permit the passage of vessels navigating the river; that on the night of the 18th day of October, 1865, deceased, in attempting to pass over the bridge, while near the north approach, the bridge being on the swing, stepped or fell through the opening into the river and was drowned. It is claimed by appellee that the night was dark, and that the lights on the bridge, which had been furnished by appellant, were insufficient, and that in consequence thereof deceased came to her death by falling from the bridge and being drowned.

The question of negligence on the part of the city was fairly presented to the jury and they have found it against the city, and we are of the opinion that the evidence sustains the...