City of Chicago v. Baker

• Citation: 195 Ill. 54,62 N.E. 892
• Parties: CITY OF CHICAGO v. BAKER.
• Decision Date: 21 February 1902
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

195 Ill. 54

62 N.E. 892

CITY OF CHICAGO

v.BAKER.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 21, 1902.

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

Action by Evert Baker against the city of Chicago. From judgment of appellate court (95 Ill. App. 413) affirming judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.Andrew J. Ryan and James J. Kelly, for appellant.

Francis T. Murphy and Thaddeus S. Allee (Edward C. Higgins, of counsel), for appellee.

Appellee sued appellant in the superior court of Cook county to recover damages for an injury to his person, alleged to have been caused through the negligence of the defendant city. The amended declaration upon which the trial was had consisted of two counts. The first alleged that it was the duty of defendant to keep its streets in a reasonably safe condition and repair, but that it failed and neglected ‘to keep and maintain any railing, guard, or protection of any kind whatsoever upon the sidewalk upon the west side of Canal street to protect and prevent persons from stepping or falling from said sidewalk, said sidewalk being, at the time and place aforesaid, elevated above the ground a certain long distance, by reason whereof, and as the result of the negligence of the defendant in the premises, and while the said plaintiff was walking along upon said sidewalk in the exercise of due care, and in the nighttime, he then and there, without any fault or negligence on his part, departed from said sidewalk by reason of the absence of the railing or other protection thereon, as aforesaid, and did then and there fall to and upon the ground below, a distance of, to wit, twenty feet, as the result of which he sustained many and divers wounds, bruises, cuts, and injuries,’ etc. By the second count it is charged that defendant failed to properly maintain the street so as to render the same safe to persons passing along the same, in that it failed to place any reasonable and sufficient lights thereon, so that the plaintiff, while walking along upon the sidewalk on said street, in the nighttime, departed ‘from said walk, there being no guard, railing, or protection whatsoever thereon, as aforesaid, and did then and there fall to and upon the ground below,a distrance of, to wit, twenty feet, as the result of which he sustained many and divers wounds, bruises, cuts, and injuries,’ etc. The plea was not guilty, and the trial by jury, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff for $12,833. $6,833 of this amount was remitted by the plaintiff on the motion for new trial, at the suggestion of the court and as a condition to the everruling of said motion. The city appealed to the appellate court for the First district, where that judgment was affirmed.

The following plat introduced in evidence shows the situation of the sidewalk and surroundings at the place of the accident:

Image 1 (2.78" X 2.99") Available for Offline Print

Preceding the opinion of the appellate court is the following explanation of the plat: ‘The space marked ‘Sidewalk’ is a planked sidewalk twelve feet wide on the west side of Canal street, and the west side of that sidewalk is the west line of the street. The space marked ‘Plank Sidewalk’ is on private ground, and is in width, from east to west, twelve feet, and fifty feet in length from north to south. This sidewalk and the sidewalk first mentioned are on the same plane,-on a level. There is no visible line of demarkation between them. Apparently they are parts of a single sidewalk. The space next south of the space marked ‘Plank Sidewalk,’ which is marked ‘Planked Inclined Driveway,’ is, as the name indicates, an inclined driveway. It is ten to twelve feet wide from north to south, and runs down on a decline from the west line of the sidewalk on the west side of Canal street to the ground, inside a vacant lot. The triangle at the southeast corner of the plat shows the decline of the driveway. Between the east end of the building marked ‘Two-Story Frame Building’ on the plat and the ‘Planked Inclined Driveway’ is an open space, the width of which, from north to south, is estimated by the witnesses at from five to eight feet. The perpendicular distance from the sidewalk to the ground is estimated * * * at from ten to fifteen feet.' The statement then proceeds: ‘Claussen, who had been a private watchman in the vicinity of the place in question for about five years before the accident, testified that the sidewalk, including the space marked ‘Plank Sidewalk,’ had been in the condition above described for a long time, with the exception that about a year before the time of the accident there was a fence or barricade at the place where it happened. There was no guard of any kind on the north or east side of the inclined driveway at the time of the accident, nor had there been for a year.'

It appears from the evidence that formerly the two-story frame building north of the driveway was used as a machine shop, and that the space marked ‘Plank Sidewalk’ in front of the building was used by the occupant of the shop to place machinery on, but that such use was discontinued about three years before the accident, since which time it was used by the public as a part of the sidewalk. Several witnesses testified that the space marked ‘Plank Sidewalk’...