The City of Chicago v. Kelly

• Decision Date: 30 September 1873
• Citation: 1873 WL 8494,69 Ill. 475
• Parties: THE CITY OF CHICAGOv.MARY KELLY.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

69 Ill. 475

1873 WL 8494 (Ill.)

THE CITY OF CHICAGO

v.MARY KELLY.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1873.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOHN G. ROGERS, Judge, presiding.

This was an action on the case, brought by Mary Kelly, a married woman, against the city of Chicago, to recover damages for personal injuries received by a fall caused by a defect in the sidewalk of the city. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. I. N. STILES, and Mr. JOHN LEWIS, for the appellant.

Mr. JOHN VAN ARMAN, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE SCOTT delivered the opinion of the Court:

The only point made on which appellant relies for a reversal of the judgment in this case, is, the damages found by the jury are excessive. Reluctant as we always are to disturb the verdicts of juries, we do not see how this judgment can be sustained.

The action is for personal injuries. While passing along, in company with her sister, appellee stepped upon a loose or defective plank in the sidewalk, which caused her to fall, and occasioned the injuries complained of. With some assistance, she was able to walk to her sister's house, not far off. At the time, she supposed the principal injury sustained was in her foot. The next day but one she walked to the boat and departed for her home in Michigan. On her arrival she detected a dull, heavy feeling in her side, as she described it, which continued through a period of about three weeks, when a miscarriage occurred, from which she suffered very great pain. The miscarriage is attributed to the injuries sustained from her fall. She was then the mother of eight children, and had previously been in excellent health. Perhaps no other cause can be assigned for the sickness that ensued, other than the fall, consistently with the evidence. Since her injury, and before the trial in the court below, she had again given birth to a living child, which she bore during the usual period of gestation. It is hardly probable she suffered any permanent injury from the miscarriage, unless it was in general debility and loss of constitutional strength. The evidence shows her health is not so good as before the injury, but it is not so clear from the testimony the decline is to be attributed wholly to the injury occasioned by the accident. There is no satisfactory evidence of permanent injury. Happily, the medical testimony does not disclose any disease or injury, the result of the accident, from which she may not ultimately recover and be as well as before.

The jury returned a verdict for $4050, upon which the court entered a judgment. It seems to us the damages found are out of all proportion to the...