City of Chicago v. McCarthy

Appellate Court of Illinois

City of Chicago v. McCarthy

61 Ill. App. 300, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 759

DecidedDecember 12, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 61 Ill. App. 300 (City of Chicago v. McCarthy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Chicago v. McCarthy, 61 Ill. App. 300, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 759 (Ill. Ct. App. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Gary

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellee, riding in a buggy with her cousin and his wife, between ten and eleven o’clock at night, on State street in Chicago, near 53d street, was thrown out and injured by the buggy being overturned from running against a plank sticking up from a hole left by a broken cover of a manhole. The city proved that the plank had been so sticking up frotn the morning of the day before. Whether the cousin, who was driving, was as careful as he should have been, we need not inquire, for his carelessness—if he was careless—does not excuse the city if it was negligent. Chicago City Ry. v. Wilcox, 33 Ill. App. 450; 138 Ill. 370.

That such an obstruction should not be left in a public highway from the morning of one day until the night of the next seems true, and the fact that it was so left, at least made it a question for the jury whether the city was negligent.

The judgment was for $2,000. We can not say that it is more than adequate compensation for the injuries she sustained.

ISFo instructions given or refused are in the abstract, or complained of by the brief for the city.

The case stands on the facts only, and we can not disturb the judgment. Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Presiding Justice Gary

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellee, riding in a buggy with her cousin and his wife, between ten and eleven o’clock at night, on State street in Chicago, near 53d street, was thrown out and injured by the buggy being overturned from running against a plank sticking up from a hole left by a broken cover of a manhole. The city proved that the plank had been so sticking up frotn the morning of the day before. Whether the cousin, who was driving, was as careful as he should have been, we need not inquire, for his carelessness—if he was careless—does not excuse the city if it was negligent. Chicago City Ry. v. Wilcox, 33 Ill. App. 450; 138 Ill. 370.

That such an obstruction should not be left in a public highway from the morning of one day until the night of the next seems true, and the fact that it was so left, at least made it a question for the jury whether the city was negligent.

The judgment was for $2,000. We can not say that it is more than adequate compensation for the injuries she sustained.

ISFo instructions given or refused are in the abstract, or complained of by the brief for the city.

The case stands on the facts only, and we can not disturb the judgment. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 Ill. App. 300, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-chicago-v-mccarthy-illappct-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack