City of Lacon v. Page

Citations

• 48 Ill. 499

Syllabus

<p>1. Negligence—on the part of a municipal corporation in heaping its streets in repair—when not excusable—though the injury wrought was partly owing to an accident. The rule has been laid down by this court, that when the injury produced was the result, partly of a defect in the street, but also, partly of an accident happening, which was the primary cause, yet, the latter fact forms no excuse for the negligence of such corporation to keep its streets in proper repair, where the damage would not have been sustained but for the defect, which was the result of carelessness, and the plaintiff was guilty of no fault or negligence.</p> <p>2. Former decision—to the same effect. The case of The Gity of Joliet v„ Verley, 35 Ills. 63.</p> <p>3. Negligence—where the defect is in that portion of the street set apart for a sidewalk, but which is used, as a highway for both vehicles and foot passengers—liability not changed. And the liability of the corporation is not changed by reason of the fact that the defect, in consequence of which a party, while driving his horses, which ran away, was injured, was in that portion of the street set apart and intended as a sidewalk, when such portion, instead of being used for foot passengers alone, was devoted to the common use of both teams and foot passengers.</p> <p>4. Same. While it is probable that, for defects in its sidewalks, the court would only hold a corporation liable to foot passengers, yet, when such sidewalk is devoted to the common use of vehicles and foot passengers, it is under obligations to make the passage safe for both classes of travelers.</p>