The City of Joliet v. Sarah M. Seward.

• Decision Date: 30 September 1877
• Citation: 1877 WL 9744,29 Am.Rep. 35,86 Ill. 402
• Parties: THE CITY OF JOLIETv.SARAH M. SEWARD.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

86 Ill. 402

1877 WL 9744 (Ill.)

29 Am.Rep. 35

THE CITY OF JOLIET

v.SARAH M. SEWARD.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1877.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Will County; the Hon. JOSIAH MCROBERTS, Judge, presiding.

Plaintiff, with her husband, came into the city of Joliet, and the carriage drawn by horses, in which they rode, was stopped in Jefferson street, when the husband got out and went into a store near at hand to make some inquiry. The place where the team was stopped was near where the owner of the adjoining premises was having an inlet sewer constructed from premises, to connect with the main sewer on Jefferson street. The workman engaged had come upon rock, and it became necessary in the prosecution of the work to do blasting. While plaintiff was sitting in the carriage during the absence of her husband, a blast was discharged, which so frightened the horses that they ran away, and in their flight they drew the carriage against the sidewalk with such violence as threw plaintiff out, either upon the sidewalk or street, by which she sustained severe and perhaps permanent injury.

In the original declaration it is averred generally it was the duty of defendant to keep all streets within the corporate limits in a safe condition for the use of the public; but that which it is averred more specifically was the cause of the injury to plaintiff was that defendant permitted blasting to be done in the street, which caused the horses attached to the carriage in which plaintiff was riding to run away, without giving any notice such work was being done. No other acts of negligence are charged in the original declaration. In the amended declaration, however, after averring the duty of defendant to keep all streets in the corporate limits in reasonable repair for the use of public travel, it is averred defendant negligently suffered and permitted a large pile of stone, earth, gravel, and other substance to be and remain in the street, and that the horses attached to the carriage in which plaintiff was, ran away and drew the carriage over the pile of stone and other material in the street, by which she was thrown to the ground, producing severe injuries.

Messrs. HOUSE, HAGAR & FLANDERS, for the appellant.

Mr. C. B. GARNSEY, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE SCOTT delivered the opinion of the Court:

There is no evidence to sustain the averment in the amended declaration, the injury to plaintiff was in consequence of the pile of stone and other material left in the street. That was in nowise the cause of the accident, and did not even tend to produce it. It is very clear from the testimony given by both parties that the carriage was drawn against the sidewalk, and not against the pile of stone in the street, and that it was striking against the sidewalk that threw plaintiff out of her carriage. On this point it can hardly be said there is any conflict in the testimony, and this branch of the case may be dismissed without further consideration.

The other act of negligence charged is, that defendant permitted persons engaged in constructing an inlet sewer to do blasting without giving notice of danger to persons in the immediate vicinity. The proof is, the blast that frightened the horses was the first one that had been discharged. Whether any of the city officers had any knowledge the persons engaged in constructing the sewer were going to employ blasting as a means of doing the work is a matter of serious doubt, under the evidence. An offer was made to prove the persons having charge of the work were expressly told by an alderman of the city that in the “prose...