Stedwell v. City of Chicago, 13013.

• Decision Date: 21 April 1921
• Docket Number: No. 13013.,13013.
• Citation: 130 N.E. 729,297 Ill. 486
• Parties: STEDWELL v. CITY OF CHICAGO
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

297 Ill. 486

130 N.E. 729

STEDWELL

v.CITY OF CHICAGO

No. 13013.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 21, 1921.

Error to Second Branch, Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; H. Sterling Pomeroy, Judge.

Action by Bertram Henry Stedwell, by his next friend, against the City of Chicago and others. A judgment against the named defendant, plaintiff having dismissed at trial as to the others, was affirmed on appeal to the Appellate Court (214 Ill. App. 642), and defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

Cartwright, C. J., and Dunn and Thompson, JJ., dissenting.Samuel A. Ettelson, Corp. Counsel, of Chicago, and William H. Devenish, City Atty., of Chicago (Robert H. Farrell, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Charles C. Spencer and Alonzo M. Griffen, both of Chicago, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant in error, by his next friend, brought an action of trespass on the case in the circuit court of Cook county against the city of Chicago, the Sanitary District of Chicago, the Commonwealth Edison Company, and the South Side Elevated Railroad Company, to recover damages for personal injuries caused by reason of his coming in contact with an electric light wire, carrying a high volatage of electricity, owned by plaintiff in error, the city of Chicago, and used by it for the purpose of supplying current to arc lights in the streets of the city. This arc light wire stretched along the south side of Fortieth street and passed under an elevated railway structure extending over Fortieth street at the intersection of Langley avenue, along which street the elevated railway ran. At the intersection of Langley avenue and Fortieth street the wire dipped from poles 25 feet in height to brackets under the elevated structure, to which to was attached by means of glass insulators. These brackets were fastened by means of wooden arms to the steel posts supporting the elevated structure. The distance from the wire so fastened to the surface of the street was approximately 13 feet. The elevated structure was supported by means of iron posts set in concrete foundations. On two sides of these posts crosspieces were attached from the foundation to the superstructure, giving the appearance of latticework. The wire in question passed within 10 inches of certain of these steel supports on the south side of Fortieth street, just over the sidewalk at the intersection of the streets, and was what is known as No. 6 weatherproof standard arc light wire, the weatherproofing being a triple-braided cotton covering saturated with a weather insulating compound, designed for the purpose of protecting the wire from water, snow, and ice but not sufficient insulation to protect persons coming in contact with the wire. The wire at the time of the accident carried approximately 4,400 volts of electricity. The defendant in error was a boy 11 years and 7 months of age at the time of the injury, and the evidence shows that he possessed the intelligence of a boy of that age. On the date of the injury, while playing ‘tag’ at this place, he climbed up the latticework fastened to the side of the post to the top thereof. When he reached the top of this pillar he came in contact with this wire, and was severely injured.

On the trial of the case the plaintiff dismissed the suit as to the Commonwealth Edison Company and the South Side Elevated Railroad Company. The jury rendered a verdict against the other two defendants. The court granted a new trial to the sanitary district and entered judgment against the city of Chicago alone, for the sum opf $25,000. An appeal was perfected to the Appellate Court for the First District, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court, and the case is brought here by the allowance of a writ of certiorari.

Plaintiff in error contends that in lighting its streets it was exercising its governmental function and therefore not liable to anyone injured by coming in contact with wires used for that purpose. The point is conclusively settled contrary to the contention of plaintiff in error. Johnston v. City of Chicago, 258 Ill. 494, 101 N. E. 960,45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1167, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 339;Dickinson v. Boston, 188 Mass. 595, 75 N. E. 68,1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 664;Davoust v. City of Alameda, 149 Cal. 69, 84 Pac. 760,5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 536,9 Ann. Cas. 847;Fisher v. City of New Bern, 140 N. C. 506, 53 S. E. 342, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 542, 111 Am. St. Rep. 857, 19 R. C. L. 1132.

The city of Chicago was therefore bound to know the dangers incident to lighting its streets with electricity, and to guard against accidents by the exercise of a degree of care commensurate with the danger. Hausler v. Commonwealth Electric Co., 240 Ill....