City of Chicago v. Brophy

Citations

• 79 Ill. 277

Syllabus

<p>1. Cities—duty of, to keep the streets free from obstructions. Whilst a city has the right to construct sewers in its streets, yet, in doing so, it has no right to leave piles of dirt upon the street in such a condition as to render it unsafe for wagons to pass.</p> <p>3. If, in making improvements, it becomes necessary for a city to leave piles of dirt in the street in such a wa3r as to render it dangerous for wagons to pass, it is negligence on the part of the city to do so without putting up guards, or notice of some kind, to warn travelers of the dangerous condition of the street.</p> <p>3. Same—improvements made in the streets of a city are presumed to be made by the city. It is a reasonable presumption, when work is done on the streets of a city, that it is done by the proper authorities of the city, and in a suit to recover damages for an injury occasioned by the negligent manner of doing such work, it is not necessary to prove that it was done by persons employed by the city.</p> <p>4. Same— bound to take notice of the condition of work done on the streets. When a city causes work to be done on its streets, it is bound to take notice of the character of the -work, and the condition in which it is left, whether safe or dangerous.</p> <p>5. Instructions—need not be repeated. It is not error to refuse an instruction, though it may contain a correct proposition, when the substance of it is contained in another instruction given at the instance of the party asking the one refused.</p> <p>6. Damages—whether excessive. Where a party, by reason of the negligence of a city in permitting dangerous obstructions to remain in its streets, was thrown from his wagon, and had the large bone of his leg-broken about midway between the knee and ankle, and the ankle joint sprained, and it was not certain that he would ever entirely recover, it was held, that, although a judgment for §1500 was large, it was not so excessive as to justify a reversal.</p>