City of Chicago v. Gallagher

Citations

• 44 Ill. 295

Syllabus

<p>1. Negligence—what constitutes—corporations making improvements must render them safe to the public. In an action brought by G. against the city of Chicago, for the loss of her husband’s life, caused by falling into a slip, it appearing by the proof that the slip was crossed by a bridge much narrower than the street, and that there was no protection in the course from the sidewalk to the bridge to prevent persons proceeding in that direction from falling into it, if they continued in a direct line from the walk to the slip,—held, that the omission to erect proper barriers to protect persons from walking or jailing into it, was negligence for which the city was liable for all damages resulting therefrom.</p> <p>2. Same. The city having permitted the excavation to be made, it was its duty to have made it secure, and fully protected persons in passing from walking or falling into it under any circumstances.</p> <p>3. Same—when improvement made is not within corporate limits—duty to protect it the same. And even it had been a natural channel, or one made before the limits of the city were extended so as to embrace it, the duty to have rendered it safe to the public would have been the same.</p> <p>4. Evidence—of noxious condition of water—admissible. And in such case, proof of the noxious condition of the water is admissible to show that by reason of its condition the danger to the life of a person falling into it would thereby be enhanced.</p> <p>5. Negligence—when degree of—increased. And the failure to properly protect such a place, establishes a greater degree of negligence than if the water had been free from such pollution.</p>