The City of Chicago v. Smith
| Decision Date | 30 September 1868 |
| Parties | THE CITY OF CHICAGOv.BRIDGET SMITH. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. ERASTUS S. WILLIAMS, Judge, presiding.
This was an action on the case, brought by the appellee against the appellant, in the court below, to recover for injuries received and occasioned, as alleged, from the negligence of appellant, in not keeping its streets in a safe and suitable condition for persons traveling thereon. The case was tried before the court and a jury, and a verdict of $1,311.00 rendered for the plaintiff. A motion for a new trial was made and overruled, and judgment entered on the verdict, to reverse which the record is brought to this court by appeal.
Mr. S. A. IRVIN, for the appellant.
Mr. E. W. EVANS, for the appellee. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:
It is not denied, the City of Chicago is liable to an action for any injury occasioned to a person by reason of the dangerous condition of the sidewalks or streets of the city, under the control of its authorities, such person using proper care to guard against accidents to which he may be exposed by reason of such condition of a street or sidewalk under such control.
The testimony shows great negligence on the part of the city authorities in suffering the catch-basin of this hydrant to be so clogged and filled up, as to render it incapable of receiving and passing off the water from the hydrant. It was also negligence in the city officials to flush the hydrant in the manner it was done, and if it was necessary it should so have been flushed as to run the water into the street, and on to the aprons at the crossing, it was their duty, if the water froze upon them, to remove it as soon as possible. It is certain the plaintiff was negligent also, for she saw the ice--“it was a hill of ice”-- and she essayed to cross it, under the light of a street lamp, when if she had gone but a little to one side or the other, the accident would not have happened. But the jury have compared her negligence with that of the city authorities, and found the preponderance against the city, by evidence which, though not satisfactory to us, is of such a nature as to prevent this court, in respect to its repeated decisions, from any interference to disturb it.
The damages, we think, are large for such an injury as the plaintiff received, but we cannot say they are so excessive as to manifest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Chicago v. Sykes
...Chicago v. Garrison, 52 Ill. 516; Voltz v. Stephani, 46 Ill. 54; Bagley v. McClure, 46 Ill. 381; Baker v. Robinson, 49 Ill. 299; Chicago v. Smith, 48 Ill. 107; Crain v. Wright, 46 Ill. 107; McCarthey v. Mooney, 49 Ill. 247; Keith v. Fink, 47 Ill. 272; Hope Ins. Co. v. Lonergan, 48 Ill. 49. ......
-
Flansburg v. Basin
...sworn falsely: Crabtree v. Hagenbaugh, 25 Ill. 235; Meixell v. Williamson, 35 Ill. 529; Brennan v. The People, 15 Ill. 511: Chicago v. Smith, 48 Ill. 107; U. S. Ex. Co. v. Hutchins, 58 Ill. 44; Pope v. Dodson, 58 Ill. 360; 1 Greenleaf's Ev. § 462. Proof of general bad character is not suffi......
-
Chapin v. Thompson
... ... R. I. & P. R. R. Co. v. Herring, 57 Ill. 59; Henry v. Eddy, 34 Ill. 508; Roth v. Smith, 41 Ill. 314; Koester v. Esslinger, 44 Ill. 477; O. & M. R. R. Co. v. Schuler, 44 Ill. 460; ... 409; T. W. & W. R. R. Co. v. Moore, 77 Ill. 217; St. P. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 77 Ill. 598; Chicago v. Lavalle, 83 Ill. 482; Belden v. Innis, 84 Ill. 78.Instructions should be accurate: Volk v ... ...
-
Kent v. Mason
... ... [1 Ill.App. 466] Appeal from the Circuit Court of Warren county; the Hon. Arthur A. Smith, Judge, presiding.Mr. H. bigelow, for appellant; against the admission of testimony of the manner ... Ryerson, 20 Ill. 343; Milliken v. Taylor, 53 Ill. 509; Chicago v. Garrison, 52 Ill. 516; Voltz v. Stephani, 46 Ill. 54; Bagely v. McClure, 46 Ill. 381; Baker v ... ...