City of Chicago v. Leseth

• Decision Date: 31 October 1892
• Citation: 32 N.E. 428,142 Ill. 642
• Parties: CITY OF CHICAGO v. LESETH.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

142 Ill. 642

32 N.E. 428

CITY OF CHICAGO

v.LESETH.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 31, 1892.

Appeal from appellate court, first district.

Action on the case by Johanna Leseth against the city of Chicago to recover damages for personal injuries. Plaintiff obtained judgment, which was affirmed by the appellate court. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J. J. Kern and E. S. Bottum, for appellant.

Story, Westover & Story, for appellee.

WILKIN, J.

Appellee brought her action in the circuit court of Cook county against appellant to recover for a physical injury alleged to have been received by her through the failure of appellant to keep one of its sidewalks in proper repair. The jury returned a verdict in her favor for $20,000. On a motion for a new trial the court required her to enter a remittitur for $5,000, which being done, the motion for new trial was overruled, and judgment renderd for $15,000 and costs of suit. The appellate court having affirmed that judgment, the city prosecutes this appeal.

The substantial controversy in the appellate court was as to whether the evidence sustained the verdict, and as to whether the damages were excessive. Notwithstanding counsel for appellant admit that these questions are conclusively settled by the judgment of the appellate court, they reargue the evidence at length, for the purpose, as is said, of showing the effect which improper remarks of counsel for appellee may have had upon the jury. During the examination of one of defendant's witnesses counsel for plaintiff said, ‘There are other accidents, I am told, that happened there.’ Counsel for defendant objected to the statement, and thereupon the court remarked, ‘That is not right to state to the jury.’ Counsel for plaintiff replied, ‘I stated that to the court, not the jury.’ Thereupon the court again stated, ‘It is highly improper to state anything about it.’ These are the statements of counsel for plaintiff which it is insisted so prejudiced the minds of the jury against defendant that their verdict should have been set aside, and a new trial granted. There is no force in the position. We will not presume that the jury would, after what passed before it, regard the statement for a moment, much less be prejudiced against the defendant by it. While it is of the first importance that counsel should avoid bringing to the attention of the jury matters not properly in the case, and courts should carefully guard the rights of parties against any such improper conduct, yet, if the...