Smith v. City of Chicago
| Decision Date | 24 February 1889 |
| Parties | SMITH v. CITY OF CHICAGO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Miller Leman & Case, for plaintiff.
Washburne & Brentano, for defendant.
(charging jury.) The plaintiff slipped and fell in front of the post-office on North Clark street, a place much frequented. It is not claimed that there was any defect in the construction of the sidewalk, and you will, therefore assume that it had no defect. The obstruction complained of was an accumulation of snow and ice. The plaintiff testified that the sidewalk in front of the door--two three, or four feet from the door-- was rough and lumpy; that snow and ice had accumulated to a depth of two to five inches. I think she said five inches. Some of the witnesses said from two to five inches, and some from two to four inches.
The first question for you is, was there an unreasonable obstruction on the sidewalk? Were the accumulations such as to make it unsafe to pass in and out of the door and along the sidewalk; and, of so, did the city know of the obstruction, or did it exist so long that the city might reasonably have known of it? If the obstruction complained of existed, and the city might have known of it, that was equivalent to knowledge. You will bear in mind, however, that the city does not undertake to guarantee persons using the streets against injury. There is no such requirement as that. People slip and fall when there is no obstruction in the streets, and when they are in reasonably good and safe condition. It is only when there is an obstruction which renders the streets unsafe and persons are injured thereby while exercising reasonable care for their own protection, that the city is liable. It does not follow that the city is liable because snow and ice are upon the sidewalks; in this climate they will be slippery. There is more or less moisture in winter which freezes and causes the sidewalks to become more dangerous than when dry, and in proportion as the danger thus increases persons must be careful. What would be reasonable care on the part of an individual at one time would not be at another. This sidewalk was used daily by hundreds perhaps thousands of people. In addition to those who had occasion to enter the post-office and leave it, others passed along in front of it, and it is for you to say whether such an obstruction, as is claimed to have existed, could have accumulated without others knowing it and complaining of it. The plaintiff seems to be the only person who was injured. If snow falls upon the sidewalk so as to become an obstruction, it is the duty of the city to remove it, but you must not require of the city what is unreasonable. A reasonable time is allowed it to perform its duty. If it permits obstructions to accumulate to such an extent that the streets become unsafe, and persons, not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parks v. City of Des Moines
...rule in all jurisdictions that a municipality must have reasonable time to perform a duty of this character imposed by law. Smith v. City of Chicago, 38 F. 388; Landolt v. City of Norwich, 37 Conn. Blakeley v. City of Troy, 18 Hun 167; Stanton v. City of Springfield, 94 Mass. 566; Bull v. C......
-
Wilson v. City of Clinton
...rule in all jurisdictions is that a municipality must have a reasonable time to perform a legal duty of this character. Smith v. City of Chicago (C. C.) 38 F. 388; Landolt v. City of Norwich, 37 Conn. 615; Blakeley v. City of Troy, 18 Hun (N. Y.) 167; Stanton v. City of Springfield, 12 Alle......
-
Wright v. City of St. Cloud
...v. City of Hastings, 25 Neb. 133; McDonald v. City of Ashland, 78 Wis. 251; Foxworthy v. City of Hastings, 31 Neb. 825; Smith v. City of Chicago, 38 F. 388; Estelle Village of Lake Crystal, 27 Minn. 243; McKenzie v. City of Northfield, 30 Minn. 456; Nichols v. City of Minneapolis, 33 Minn. ......
-
Wilson v. City of Clinton
... ... it cannot be assumed that the city or its officials had ... knowledge of a thing which the evidence "failed to show ... existed." See Smith v. City of Sioux City, 200 ... Iowa 1100, 205 N.W. 956; Eickelberg v. City of ... Waterloo, 197 Iowa 1219, 198 N.W. 638; Ray v. City ... of ... have a reasonable time to perform a legal duty of this [204 ... Iowa 1186] character. Smith v. City of Chicago, 38 ... F. 388; Landolt v. City of Norwich, 37 Conn. 615; ... Blakeley v. City of Troy, 18 Hun 167; Stanton v ... City of Springfield, 94 Mass ... ...