Ritgers v. City of Gillespie

• Decision Date: 19 June 1953
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 9887
• Citation: 350 Ill.App. 485,113 N.E.2d 215
• Parties: RITGERS v. CITY OF GILLESPIE.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 215

113 N.E.2d 215

350 Ill.App. 485

RITGERS v. CITY OF GILLESPIE.

Gen. No. 9887.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

June 19, 1953.

Alvin G. Whitehouse, Gillespie, J. E. Wenzel, Gillespie, for appellant.

D. A. McGrady, Gillespie, for appellee.

REYNOLDS, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the Circuit Court of Macoupin County, Illinois, in the amount of $1,000 in favor of Bernean Ritgers and against the City of Gillespie, Illinois. The cause was tried before a jury and grows out of an accident on December 19, 1950, when the plaintiff fell on the ice on a sidewalk in the City of Gillespie.

The City Hall of the City of Gillespie is located at the intersection of Montgomery Street and Chestnut Street and the place of the accident was at or near the curb of Montgomery Street on the west side of the street in front or adjacent to the City Hall. The plaintiff had walked north on the east side of Montgomery Street, to Chestnut Street, crossed Montgomery Street to the west and was stepping up on the curb when she slipped on the ice and fell, breaking her ankle in three places and a bone in her leg. She was picked up by a Coca Cola employee and taken to a doctor. There does not seem to be much question as to the nature or extent of the plaintiff's injuries.

At the place of the accident, the sidewalk on Chestnut Street has a decided slope to the entrance of the City Hall which is located some ten or fifteen feet west from the corner of the building. The slope comes down from the entrance to the northeast corner of the building, which is the corner where the plaintiff slipped and fell on the ice. The sidewalks there are fairly wide. At this northeast corner of the City Hall, there seems to be an old bell tower, which forms a cupola. The roof of the cupola, which is hip-roof construction, comes down on the north and east side of the building and overhangs the building proper about one or two feet. On the Montgomery Street side, there is a gutter with a downspout coming down on the east side of the building, some few feet to the south of the corner which drains into the sewer. There is some evidence in the record that the gutter and the downspout had been in a leaky condition for some time. On the north side there does not appear to be a gutter and the rain on this side falls on the sidewalk. The evidence of the plaintiff shows that the sidewalk from the corner and curb of the southeast corner of the intersections of Montgomery and Chestnut Streets was covered with ice, up to and past the entrance to the City Hall. The plaintiff stated on examination that it was icy in a solid sheet as far as she could see, and on cross examination stated that she meant only past the entrance to the city hall and not all down the street; that the weather was cold but not bitter cold, and that there was ice on the streets of Gillespie; that there were patches where the ice had been removed or worn off and that she observed the ice in front of the city hall, but she was going that way and stepped up on this patch of ice on which she fell and suffered her accident. She was not wearing galoshes and stated that she had left her home that morning without them; that she did not think she needed them. There is also evidence that the weather had been freezing for several days and that ice conditions in the City of Gillespie were generally bad.

The evidence as to the condition of the corner at the time of the accident is conflicting. A grocery clerk, who testified for the plaintiff and who admitted that he believed Mrs. Ritgers should be paid for her injury, testified that the condition of the corner as to ice had been bad for some time; that he had slipped and fallen there himself several times and that he generally walked around it; that the water coming off the cupola, either down the downspout or off the edge of the roof, drained across the sidewalks; that there was a leak in the downspout. The defendant's evidence was to the effect that the sidewalk was cleaned that morning by the Superintendent of Streets and his assistant; that there was no break in the downspout and that any water coming down the downspout drained into the gutter; that there was no ice on the sidewalks in front of the city hall or around the city hall after 8 o'clock on the morining of the accident. The accident happened about 10:00 o'clock, a. m. This testimony is corroborated in part by the Mayor of the City who testified that when he went to the city hall at 3:00 o'clock p. m. of the day of the accident, there was no ice on the sidewalk in front of the city hall; that there had been no notice and he did not know of any defect in the downspout; that any water draining into the downspout would drain into the sewer and not on the sidewalk on Montgomery Street; that the curb was level with the sidewalks; that any water draining on the sidewalk would, on account of the slope, drain into the gutter of the street. This position is also corroborated by a Mr. Loren C. Scott who also testined that he saw the walks cleaned and that the walks were clean on Montgomery Street and all clean from the Chestnut Street side from the city hall to the curb on Montgomery Street.

The question of the liability of a city to maintain its streets and sidewalks has been passed upon by our courts many times. It has been held that the only duty imposed on a city is to exercise reasonable care to keep its sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition for the use of persons who are themselves in the exercise of due care and caution for their own safety. Molway v. City of Chicago, 239 Ill. 486, 88 N.E. 485, 23 L.R.A.,N.S., 543. Where a person is injured by reason of a defect in the sidewalk or street, it has been held that the city can only be found guilty of negligence when the defect, allegedly causing the injury is such that a reasonably prudent man should anticipate some danger to persons walking upon it. Walter v. City of Rockford, 332 Ill.App. 243, 74 N.E.2d 903. There are a number of cases holding that a city is not liable where a pedestrian trips and falls where parts of the sidewalk are at different levels, the test seeming to be if the sidewalk was reasonably safe, the city would not be liable. Pack v. City of Chicago, 281 Ill.App. 6; City of Chicago v. Bixby, 84 Ill. 82. These last cited cases relate to differences of level in the sidewalks or streets and are only cited to show the general law as to the liability of cities. In this case another question arises, namely, what is the liability of a city for injuries caused by icy conditions on its streets and sidewalks? The authorities in Illinois generally agree that the city is not liable for injuries resulting from the general slipperiness of streets and sidewalks due to the presence of ice and snow which have accumulated as a result of natural causes. Strappelli v. City of Chicago, 371 Ill. 72, 20 N.E.2d 43; Casper v. City of Chicago, 320 Ill.App. 269, 50 N.E.2d 858; Stieb v. City of Chicago, 345 Ill.App. 505, 104 N.E.2d 112; Trumbly v. City of Chicago, 335 Ill.App. 122, 80 N.E.2d 453; Cronin v. Brownlie, 348 Ill.App. 448, 109 N.E.2d 352, 354. The court in the case of Cronin v. Brownlie, says: 'The law is settled in this State that a city is not liable for injuries resulting from the slipperiness of its streets and sidewalks caused by the presence of ice and snow accumulated as a result of natural causes. Strappelli v. City of Chicago, 371 Ill. 72, 20 N.E.2d 43. The basis of this rule of law is that it is unreasonable and impractical to compel a city in our claimate to perform the labor necessary to remove ice and snow from its streets and sidewalks to keep them safe for travel. If the accumulation is caused by some defect of the street or sidewalk and this creates the dangerous condition, then a city may be liable. Graham v. City of Chicago, 346 Ill. 638, 178 N.E. 911.' No arbitrary rule can be laid down as to the degree of care required of a person injured while using a defective highway or street but...