City of Chicago v. Hislop

Citations

• 61 Ill. 86

Syllabus

<p>1. Highway in the city. A tunnel under the Chicago river in the cit.y of Chicago is one of its highways, and as such, it was the duty of the city to use all reasonable efforts to keep it in a safe condition for travel; and if that could not be done without stoppage of travel for a time, then the approaches should have been so guarded as to prevent persons from entering therein, or in some manner warned of the danger. Or it should have been closed. It was negligence to keep it open for passage, to the peril of life.</p> <p>2. Same—in dangerous condition. When the tunnel leaked, and large quantities of ice had formed on the foot way, and about the middle of it, where the peril was the greatest, the ice had been chipped up and not removed, and could not be seen until the passenger was in its midst, the foot-way was unsafe and very dangerous, and had'so remained a- long time before the accident. In its dangerous condition, it was the duty of the city either to have barred all ingress or to have given notice of the probable danger, and where the person injured was guilty of no want of care, the city must be held liable.</p> <p>3. New trial—newly discovered evidence. Where the newly discovered evidence is inconclusive in its character, and such as, if it had been heard on the trial, and the verdict against it, the court would not have set the verdict aside, a new trial should not be granted, that it might be admitted before another jury. It is only under very peculiar circumstances that a new trial will be granted to enable the impeachment of witnesses.</p>