City of Aurora v. Rockabrand

Citations

• 149 Ill. 399
• 36 N.E. 1004

Syllabus

<p>1. ÍTESLieENCE—obstructions in the street—failure to place danger signals. The failure of a city to place danger signals at places of danger from obstructions in the streets, whereby a personal injury is received, is negligence, notwithstanding the streets are lighted by electric lights. It will not do to say that an electric light upon a street, however bright, can always take the place of danger signals.</p> <p>2. Same—instruction construed. In an action against a city, the first count of the declaration charged negligence in placing and leaving upon a street a large pile of gravel, and the second the same, and also negligence in failing to place lights or signals of danger upon ornear the gravel. The court instructed the jury, that if they believe, from the evidence, that the defendant was guilty of negligence as charged in the declaration, and in consequence of such negligence the plaintiff was injured while exercising due care, the plaintiff was entitled to recover : Held, that the instruction, -when fairly considered, did not, in the slightest degree, take away from the consideration of the jury any evidence in the case as to the sufficiency of the city lights to enable the plaintiff, by the use of ordinary care, to discern and avoid the danger.</p> <p>3. Practice—ashing special finding—controverting the same. Where a party to a suit asks for and obtains a special finding of a fact adversely to his contention, he will not be allowed to gainsay such finding on appeal or writ of error.</p>