City of Chicago v. McGiven

Citations

• 78 Ill. 347

Syllabus

<p>1. Cities—duty of, in constructing sidewalks. A city is not required to have its sidewalks so constructed as to secure immunity from danger in using them; nor is it bound to employ the utmost care and exertion to that end. Its duty, under the law, is only to see that its sidewalks are reasonably safe for persons exercising ordinary care and caution.</p> <p>2. Same—liability of, for defects in sidewalks. The mere slipperiness of a sidewalk, occasioned by ice or snow, not being accumulated so as to constitute an obstruction, is not such a defect as will make the city liable for damages occasioned thereby.</p> <p>3. Evidence—opinions of witnesses—experts. The opinions of witnesses should not be received as evidence, where all the facts upon which such opinions are founded can be ascertained and made intelligible to the court or jury.</p> <p>4. On questions of science, skill or trade, where the facts in issue are not themselves accessible by evidence, persons of skill, called experts, are, from the necessity of the case, permitted to give their opinions in evidence.</p> <p>5. Whether glass placed in a sidewalk to afford light to the area below, is unsafe, by reason of the too great smoothness or slipperiness of its surface, is not a question of science or skill such as to render the opinions of witnesses admissible.</p> <p>6. Peactice—reading law to the jury, improper. Counsel should not be permitted, in civil cases, to read law to the jury. It is for the court to instruct the jury as to the law governing the case, and not for them to determine it for themselves by having law books read to them.</p> <p>7. And it does not obviate the objection, that the reading is for the purpose of illustration only.</p>