City of Joliet v. Harwood

86 Ill. 110
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by42 cases

This text of 86 Ill. 110 (City of Joliet v. Harwood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Joliet v. Harwood, 86 Ill. 110 (Ill. 1877).

Opinions

Mr. Justice Dickev

delivered the opinion of the Court :-

It is insisted that O’Riley, the contractor, is responsible-for this injury, and not the city; and this upon the position that where public work is done by an independent contractor, with the city, the doctrine of respondeat superior does-not apply. Dillon, in his excellent work on Municipal Corporations (sec. 792), says : “ Such is the general rule ; but it is important to bear in mind that it does not apply where the contract directly requires the -performance of" work intrinsically dangerous, however skillfully performed. In such case a .party authorizing the work is regarded as the author of the mischief resulting from it, whether he-does the work himself or lets it out by contract.”

In this case the work which the contractor was required by the city to do wrns intrinsically dangerous, however carefully or skillfully done. The right of recovery in this case does not rest upon a charge of negligence on the part of the contractor; it rests upon the fact that the city caused work to be done which was intrinsically dangerous — the natural (though not the necessary) consequence of which was the injury to plaintiff’s property. In such case the city is responsible. The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

GJ Leasing Co., Inc. v. Union Elec. Co.
825 F. Supp. 1363 (S.D. Illinois, 1993)
Benesh v. New Era, Inc.
566 N.E.2d 779 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1991)
Central Trust & Savings Bank v. Toppert
554 N.E.2d 820 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1990)
Continental Building Corp. v. Union Oil Co. of California
504 N.E.2d 787 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1987)
Fallon v. INDIAN TRAIL SCHOOL, ADDISON TP. SCH. DIST.
500 N.E.2d 101 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1986)
Riordan v. International Armament Corp.
477 N.E.2d 1293 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1985)
J. J. Altman & Co. v. State
35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 731 (Court of Claims of Illinois, 1982)
Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad v. American Cyanamid Co.
517 F. Supp. 314 (N.D. Illinois, 1981)
Clark v. City of Chicago
410 N.E.2d 1025 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1980)
Hulke v. International Manufacturing Co.
142 N.E.2d 717 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1957)
Opal v. Material Service Corp.
133 N.E.2d 733 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1956)
Sanitary District v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
61 N.E.2d 286 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1945)
Young v. Masci
289 U.S. 253 (Supreme Court, 1933)
Van Auken v. Barr
270 Ill. App. 150 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1933)
Andronick v. Daniszewski
268 Ill. App. 543 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1932)
Gerrard v. Porcheddu
243 Ill. App. 562 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1927)
Kister v. City of Hastings
187 N.W. 909 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1922)
Donohue v. George W. Stiles Construction Co.
214 Ill. App. 82 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1919)
City of Muskogee v. Hancock
1916 OK 598 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
86 Ill. 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-joliet-v-harwood-ill-1877.