City of Chicago v. Dermody

• Decision Date: 30 September 1871
• Citation: 1871 WL 8287,61 Ill. 431
• Parties: CITY OF CHICAGOv.WILLIAM DERMODY.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

61 Ill. 431

1871 WL 8287 (Ill.)

CITY OF CHICAGO

v.WILLIAM DERMODY.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1871.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. WILLIAM A. PORTER, Judge, presiding.

Mr. I. N. STILES, and Mr. JOHN LEWIS, for the appellant.

Mr. E. A. OTIS, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action on the case, brought by appellee, in the Superior Court of Chicago, against the city, to recover for personal injuries occasioned by the falling of the roof of the City Hall. It consisted of a wing on the west end of the court house. It was in the process of completion at the time of the accident, and appellee was engaged as a plasterer in the employment of Doyle & Johnson, sub-contractors. The roof which fell was constructed by Letz & Son, who had contracted with the city to construct the iron work of the building.

The work was done under an ordinance, of which this is the material portion:

“The Board of Public Works are hereby authorized and directed to advertise for proposals, and to proceed to contract for and cause to be erected, a wing on the west side of the court house, to correspond, in its outward appearance and design, with a wing to be erected by Cook county on the east side of the court house, and according to plans furnished by Messrs. Rose & Chapman, architects, the internal arrangements to be subject, however, to such modifications as shall be deemed by said board best for the interests of the city of Chicago.”

These plans of Rose & Chapman, with the specifications attached, were the basis upon which the contracts for erection and completion of the building were made. But it is contended that Letz & Son constructed the roof according to their own plans, and the roof thus constructed fell and produced the injury.

The trial in the court below resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee.

It is contended that, inasmuch as Letz & Son failed to follow the plans of the architects, and constructed the roof on plans of their own, the city was thereby absolved from all liability for the injury sustained by appellee; that such deviation rendered Letz & Son alone liable to compensate appellee for the injury.

It is conceded, and if it were not, the evidence establishes the fact, that the roof was insufficient in its construction, as it fell from the weight of but a few inches of snow which had fallen on it. Section 11 of chapter 6 of the city charter declares that, it shall be the duty of the board of public works to take special charge and superintendence, subject to such general ordinances as may be adopted, of all streets, alleys, etc., all public places, public grounds, and all markets, market places and market houses, engine houses, hospitals, armories, and all other public buildings in the city, and of the erection of public buildings.

From this provision it is apparent that the erection of the City Hall was under the especial charge of the board of public works. That duty is imposed by the charter, and could not, so far as we can see, have been transferred to any other officers of the city. The city might, under this provision, by general ordinance, control the action of the board, so as to have them subject to the will of the common council, but the board acts under the power conferred by the charter in the manner directed by the common council.

The board of public works, then, had the control and charge of this building, and the question is fairly presented whether the contractors are the servants of the city, and the doctrine of respondeat superior applies.

In the case of The City of Chicago v. Joney, 60 Ill. 383, this court held that the contractors with the city to deepen a portion of the Illinois and Michigan canal outside of the city limits, the work being done under a statute of the State for the benefit of the city, were the servants of the city, and it was liable for the negligence of the contractors which produced...