City of Bloomington v. Perdue

Citations

• 99 Ill. 329
• 1881 Ill. LEXIS 177

Syllabus

<p>1. Instruction — repeating. ' There is no error in refusing an instruction, where another one given fully expresses the law expressed in the one refused.</p> <p>2. Negligence — standard of care on part of plaintiff. In an action by a young lady against a city, to recover damages for an injury based upon the negligence of the defendant in not keeping a sidewalk in repair, involving the question of the plaintiff’s freedom from negligence, instructions which do not refer as a standard of caution to “ what ordinary young ladies would do,” but to the conduct of “an ordinarily prudent person,” and of “a woman of common or ordinary prudence,” are not faulty in respect to the standard referred to.</p> <p>3. Same — evidence as tending to disprove want of due care and caution. In a suit by a young lady against a city to recover damages for an injury to the uterus, caused by a fall from a defective sidewalk, the defendant proved that she did not take proper care of herself after the injury, by remaining quiet, as showing negligence on her part increasing the injury. On cross-examination of the physicians called by the defence, the plaintiff proved, over defendant’s objection, tha{, an unmarried woman, not acquainted with the anatomy of the injured part, could not be expected to act as promptly and intelligently as one understanding it, or as a medical man would, and that it was a common thing for women to suffer from a displacement or injury of the organ spoken of, without themselves knowing the trouble: Held., that there was no error in allowing the evidence.</p> <p>4. Municipal inbebtebness — in excess of constitutional limitation — not applicable to liability for torts. In an action on the case against a city to recover for a personal injury growing out of negligence on the part of the city, it can not raise the question that it is already indebted to an amount in excess of the constitutional limitation.</p>