City of Sterling v. Thomas

Decision Date30 September 1871
Citation60 Ill. 264,1871 WL 8132
PartiesCITY OF STERLINGv.HENRY THOMAS.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Whiteside county; the Hon. W. W. HEATON, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. HENRY & JOHNSON, for the plaintiff in error.

Messrs. WILKINSON, SACKETT & BENNETT, for the defendant in error.

Mr. JUSTICE BREESEdelivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action on the case for an injury occasioned by the negligence of plaintiff in error in allowing an opening in the sidewalk of the city of Sterling to remain unprotected, by means of which the defendant in error, though walking with all due care and caution, in the night time, was precipitated into the opening, and was seriously injured.

It appears one Edwards, who was erecting a building on the corner of Spruce and Third streets, in the city of Sterling, did, with the knowledge and consent of the city authorities, in order to reach the basement of his building, make an excavation under the sidewalk.This excavation was kept covered with loose boards, except when access to the basement was necessary; the boards, or a portion of them were then removed, and replaced after the necessity had passed.

This was the condition of the opening up to six o'clock of the evening of September 23, 1869, after which time some person unknown removed the covering, and the plaintiff, it being very dark that night, in going home, fell into the basement and broke his shoulder.

Boyden, the street commissioner, testified he knew the opening was there the day before the accident; saw it open when the sidewalk was first built; went down to it on purpose to see if it was covered.

It is insisted by the plaintiff in error that it is not chargeable with negligence, it having performed its duty in causing this excavation to be covered.

It is admitted, by the charter of the city its streets and sidewalks are under the care and control of the city authorities, and the duty to keep them in repair is incumbent on them, and for any neglect in its performance, they are liable in damages.City of Bloomington v. Bay,42 Ill. 508.

The question whether this covering of boards, which could be easily removed, afforded sufficient security, was fairly left to the jury, and we concur with them in opinion it was not sufficient.Adequate security should have been afforded, which could have been done by erecting a sufficient railing around the excavation.This would have prevented any one...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
12 cases
  • City of Chicago v. Fowler
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • September 30, 1871
    ...no desire to add anything to what was said in Browning v. The City of Springfield, 17 Ill. 143; City of Bloomington v. Bay, 42 ib. 503; City of Springfield v. Le Claire, 49 ib. 476; City of Chicago v. Johnson, 53 ib. 91, and City of Sterling v. Thomas, 60 Ill. 264, and other cases. The point in this case is, notice on the part of the city authorities of this obstruction. There was no actual notice proved, but it was proved that the street in question was one of the most fashionable...
  • The City of El Paso v. Causey
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 31, 1877
    ...support of the judgment below, cited City of Galesburg v. Higley, 61 Ill. 287; Chicago v. Hislop, 61 Ill. 86; Chicago v. Langlass, 52 Ill. 256; Chicago v. Langlass, 66 Ill. 361; Chicago v. Wright, 68 Ill. 586; Joilet v. Verley, 35 Ill. 58; City of Sterling v. Thomas, 60 Ill. 264; Chicago v. Gallagher, 44 Ill. 295; Bacon v. Boston, 3 Cush. 174.PILLSBURY, J. In 1872, Shur Tompkins & Co. erected a three-story brick building, with basement,...
  • City of Aurora v. Brown
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 31, 1882
    ...the sidewalk was dangerous and plaintiff was using ordinary care in passing over it, and was injured, defendant is liable, cited City of Peru v. French, 55 Ill. 317; City of Centralia v. Scott, 59 Ill. 129; City of Sterling v. Thomas, 60 Ill. 264; City of Bloomington v. Bay, 42 Ill. 503; City of Champaign v. Patterson, 50 Ill. 61; City of Aurora v. Dale, 90 Ill. 46; City of Aurora v. Hillman, 90 Ill. 61. The construction...
  • Lenzen v. City of New Braunfels
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 22, 1896
    ...McCarthy v. City of Syracuse, 46 N. Y. 194. Illinois: City of Lacon v. Page, 48 Ill. 499; City of Champaign v. Patterson, 50 Ill. 62; City of Bloomington v. Bay, 42 Ill. 503; City of Sterling v. Thomas, 60 Ill. 265; White v. Bond Co., 58 Ill. 298; Town of Waltham v. Kemper, 55 Ill. 346. Alabama: Albritton v. Mayor, 60 Ala. 486. Wisconsin: Kenworthy v. Town of Ironton, 41 Wis. 647; Milwaukee v. Davis, 6 Wis. 377. Virginia: Noble...
  • Get Started for Free