The City of Joliet v. Verley

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BECKWITH
• Citation: The City of Joliet v. Verley, 35 Ill. 58, 1864 WL 3024, 85 Am.Dec. 342 (Ill. 1864)
• Decision Date: 30 April 1864
• Parties: THE CITY OF JOLIETv.AMELIA II. VERLEY.

35 Ill. 58

1864 WL 3024 (Ill.)

85 Am.Dec. 342

THE CITY OF JOLIET

v.AMELIA II. VERLEY.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April Term, 1864.

ERROR to Circuit Court of Du Page County.

Case by defendant in error against plaintiff in error, wherein a recovery was sought for injuries caused by the negligence of the city in not keeping a certain sidewalk in repair, whereby the plaintiff fell therefrom down a flight of stone steps, and was considerably injured.

The evidence disclosed that there was a walk upon the side of the canal bridge, referred to by the court, for the use of persons crossing said bridge on foot, and that to connect with this walk, the city made diagonal passage-ways (the bridge being narrower than the street) from the street sidewalks to the walk upon the bridge; that the bridge at one end being somewhat higher than the walk so made by the city, one or two steps were made from the bridge down thereto; that from the passage-way at the abutment at this end of the bridge, a flight of stone steps extended down to the canal bank, a distance of over ten feet; that the passage-way at the foot of the steps leading down from the bridge was not protected by guards or railing; that plaintiff, who had just crossed the bridge and was descending the steps to the passage-way, caught her dress upon a nail in the bridge, and when she turned around to disengage it, having stepped down upon said passage-way upon one of the two loose and warped planks placed side by side, which there composed it, the plank tipped, causing the plaintiff to fall down said flight of steps, which is the injury complained of.

The court instructed the jury for the plaintiff as follows:

(1) “The defendant is bound to keep and maintain its streets and sidewalks in good and sufficient repair and reasonably safe for all persons passing on and over the same, and if the jury find, from the evidence, that the defendant failed to keep its sidewalks in such repair, and that the injury complained of by the plaintiff resulted from that cause, without negligence or want of care on her part, they will find for the plaintiff.

(2) If the jury find, etc., that the injury complained of by the plaintiff would not have happened to her if the said sidewalk had been in suitable repair, the defendants are liable to her in damages, if she exercised reasonable care in passing over said sidewalk.

(3) Reasonable care, mentioned in these instructions, means that degree of care which may reasonably be expected from a person placed in the plaintiff's situation at the time of the alleged injury.

(4) If the jury find, etc., that the plaintiff was injured by reason of the defendant's negligently failing to keep its sidewalk in proper and suitable repair, and allowing the same to remain so out of repair, and without fault on her part, they then have a right to find for her such damages as will compensate her for the personal injuries so received by her, for her loss of time in endeavoring to be cured, and her expenses incurred in respect thereof, the pain and suffering undergone and any permanent injury and consequent pecuniary loss; and especially so, if the jury find, etc., that such injuries so received caused a disability for further exertion.

(5) The defendant had no right to place any obstructions on or near said sidewalk, nor had it a right to allow any one else to do so, or permit any obstruction to remain on or near said sidewalk an unreasonable time; if it has done so, it is liable, if such obstruction caused the injury complained of, in case the plaintiff used reasonable care.

(6) The defendant is bound by law to use all the care and diligence necessary to render the said passage-way at the west end of the canal bridge reasonably safe; and if the jury find, etc., that the stone stairs referred to by the witnesses rendered said passage-way more unsafe than it otherwise would have been, then it is proper that the jury should take it into consideration in determining whether the defendant used the care and diligence necessary to make said passageway reasonably safe under the circumstances.”

The court instructed the jury for the defendant as follows:

(1) “The defendant is not bound to any greater diligence than to keep the streets and sidewalks reasonably safe, and if any accident occurred when they were reasonably safe, the defendant is not liable for such accident.

(2) If the jury find, etc., that the place where the accident occurred was necessarily more dangerous than the ordinary streets and sidewalks, then the plaintiff was required to use more than ordinary care and diligence to avoid accident, and if in such case she failed to use such care and diligence in proportion to the danger, she cannot recover.

(3) Before the plaintiff can recover in this case, she is bound to prove affirmatively, not only that the defendant was guilty of negligence, but she must affirmatively prove that she was using at the time of the accident all the care and diligence that a reasonable person would ordinarily use in passing a place of that description. In this case the burden of proof is not upon the defendant to prove want of care in passing, but upon the plaintiff to prove that she did pass with such caution.

(4) Under the pleadings in this case, the plaintiff cannot recover for any want of railing or fixtures north of the passage-way at the west end of the bridge,...