Baran v. City of Chicago Heights, 41743
| Decision Date | 26 September 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 41743,41743 |
| Citation | 251 N.E.2d 227,43 Ill.2d 177 |
| Parties | Donald J. BARAN, Appellee, v. The CITY OF CHICAGO HEIGHTS, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Warren R. Ross and James East, Chicago, for appellant.
Harold A. Liebenson and Irving B. Mayer, Chicago, for appellee.
After a jury trial Donald J., Baran recovered a $40,000 judgment against the City of Chicago Heights for personal injuries. The judgment was affirmed in the appellate court (99 Ill.App.2d 221, 240 N.E.2d 381) and the city has been granted leave to appeal. To reverse the judgment it is contended that as a matter of law the city was not guilty of any negligence, that the plaintiff was negligent as a matter of law, and that certain jury instructions tendered by the city were improperly refused.
The plaintiff, 29 years of age, incurred the injuries on December 8, 1960, when he drove his car past the dead end of Ashland Avenue and crashed into a tree. It was shortly after midnight, and he was on his way to a restaurant after an evening of bowling. He was driving alone, at about 25 miles an hour, and had never been in the particular area before. Ashland Avenue is a preferential street running north and south. At the south end toward which the plaintiff was traveling, it terminates in a 'T' intersection with Hickory Street, which extends in an east-west direction. A vacant lot extends from the southern edge of Hickory Street some 150 feet to a railroad embankment 12 to 15 feet high. The tree with which plaintiff collided was about 30 feet south of Hickory Street and 5 feet east of what would be the center line of Ashland Avenue extended.
At the third and fourth intersections to the north of the 'dead end' four-way stop signs were in place, and at the sixth there were traffic signals. All the other intersections had stop signs for east-west traffic. At or near each intersection was an incandescent street light suspended over the roadway upon an arm eight feet long affixed to a vertical pole twenty-five feet high. The lamp at Ashland and Hickory, the 'dead end,' was erected on the northeast corner.
On the night in question the weather was cold and cloudy, and the streets were dry. The plaintiff was southbound alone in his 1955 model Buick convertible, driving about 25 miles per hour with his city driving lights on. According to his testimony, as his car entered the intersection the light from his headlights 'came in contact with the beam of the overhead light and it sort of blended or melted in one glare of light, and as I passed through this light my front wheels went off the road of Hickory Street.' When this happened he swerved to the left, saw the tree ahead of him and then unsuccessfully tried to avoid hitting it. There were no signs, barricades or reflectors to indicate that Ashland Avenue terminated at that point.
Both parties introduced testimony concerning the lighting at the scene. Plaintiff called as an expert an electrical engineer who testified that in his opinion the intersection was improperly illuminated, that the light pole was placed on the wrong corner. There was testimony on defendant's behalf by a police officer and a member of the city council, both of whom lived in the vicinity, and by a neighbor whose home adjoined the vacant lot. Each stated that the street light cast sufficient illumination to see the lot, the tree and the embankment from a considerable distance away. There was no evidence of fault in the work of installation or maintenance. The conflict in testimony relates only to the location or 'plan' of the lighting.
The city insists that the court should have directed a verdict, that the plaintiff, in driving too fact to stop within the range of his vision, was negligent as a matter of law, and that the evidence adduced to show negligence on defendants' part did not present a question for the jury. It is argued that as a matter of law a city is under no obligation to erect signs, barricades or reflectors warning of dangerous conditions, nor is its judgment in placing a street light subject to review unless the court can say it is so dangerous its construction would be negligence as a matter of law.
We cannot accept the argument. The court has long...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gutstein v. City Of Evanston
... ... City of Evanston Law Department, Evanston, IL, for Appellant. Corboy & Demetrio, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Appellee. Justice ROBERT E. GORDON delivered the opinion of the court: ... Baran v. City of Chicago Heights, 43 Ill.2d 177, 180-81, 251 N.E.2d 227 (1969) (“In holding a city ... ...
-
Roberts v. State, 83-170
... ... Cedar City, 12 Utah 2d 45, 49-50, 361 P.2d 1114, 1117 (1961) ("When the evidence is ... City of Preston, 97 Idaho 295, 298, 543 P.2d 848, 851 (1975); Baran v. City of Chicago Heights, 43 Ill.2d 177, 180, 251 N.E.2d 227, 229 ... ...
-
Robinson v. Wash. Twp., Corp.
... ... Baum, Kristy M. Gonowon (argued), Gonsky, Baum & Whittaker, Ltd., Chicago, for appellant.Troy A. Lundquist (argued), Anastasia L. Hess, Langhenry, ... Hanley v. City of Chicago, 343 Ill.App.3d 49, 277 Ill.Dec. 140, 795 N.E.2d 808 (2003) ... 745 ILCS 10/3103(a) (West 2008); see also Baran v. City of Chicago Heights, 43 Ill.2d 177, 181, 251 N.E.2d 227 (1969) (a ... ...
-
Greene v. City of Chicago
...that the work is done in a reasonably safe and skillful manner." (405 Ill. 460, 466, 91 N.E.2d 401, 404.) In Baran v. City of Chicago Heights (1969), 43 Ill.2d 177, 251 N.E.2d 227, the plaintiff drove past the end of the street which ended in a "T" intersection and crashed into a tree. The ......