City of Chicago v. Lavelle

Citations

• 83 Ill. 482

Syllabus

<p>1. Negligence—if the injury is the result of accident, no recov&ry can he had. In a suit against a city to recover damages for an injury claimed to have resulted from a hole in the sidewalk, where the weight of evidence was that the walk was in a good condition, the court refused to instruct the jury that if they believed, from the evidence, that the alleged injury was accidental, and that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was negligent, they should find for the defendant: Meld, that the refusal was error.</p> <p>3. New trial—finding against evidence. While it is the province of the jury to pass upon questions of fact, and this court reluctantly interferes with a verdict where the evidence is conflicting, yet where the evidence preponderates clearly against the finding, a new trial will he granted.</p>