TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

City of Springfield v. Doyle

The City of Springfield v. Thomas Doyle

City of Springfield v. Doyle, 76 Ill. 202 (1875)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1875
Judges
Breese
Citations
76 Ill. 202
Syllabus
1. Municipal corporation—liability for injury from defect in sidewalk. Where the sidewalk of a city is out of repair, and- remains so for a considerable time, actual notice to the street supervisor or city authorities will not be necessary, to hold the city liable for a personal injury sustained by a person in consequence of the dangerous condition of the same, while using due care on his part. Notice of the defective state of the walk will be presumed after the lapse of a sufficient time. 2. Declaration—injurry from defective sidewalk. In an action on the case by a party against a city, to recover damages for personal injuries caused by defects in the sidewalks of the city, if the declaration describes the locus as a street of the city known as Jefferson street, it will be sufficiently specific on general demurrer.
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. Charles S. Zane, Judge, presiding.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Breese

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice Breese delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action on the case, against the city of Springfield, to recover damages for an injury occasioned the plaintiff by reason of a defective sidewalk on Jefferson street, in said city.

There were five counts in the declaration, and a demurrer to each, which was sustained as to the first, second and fourth counts, and the plea of not guilty and one special plea pleaded to the third and fifth counts. ■ •

There was a demurrer to the special plea, which was sustained, and an issue to the jury on the first plea. There was a verdict of guilty and the damages assessed at two hundred and fifty dollars. A motion for a new trial was denied, and judgment rendered on the verdict.

The city appeals, and makes the point that, by the 10th section of their charter, the city is not liable for any damage or injury arising from the bad condition of its streets, alleys or highways by reason of the neglect of the proper officers of the city to repair the same, until the supervisor of the city shall have been notified thereof, and fails to repair them in a reasonable time after such notice.

It is alleged in the third count of the declaration that the city had notice of the bad condition of this sidewalk, and in the fifth count, that the supervisor of the city had knowledge of its bad condition previous to the injury complained of. The section is silent as to the kind of notification the supervisor shall have. In this case the sidewalk was out of repair for a long time before this accident occurred, so long as to constitute notice, in view of repeated decisions of this court.

Because no person has given actual notice to the supervisor, a person passing carefully along a sidewalk which is in a dangerous condition, and had been so for years, can have no redress for an injury so caused. This is the argument, but it is not founded in justice or right.

Full control is given the city authorities, by the charter, over the streets and sidewalks, and money can be raised in various ways therein provided, to be expended upon them. That they had not the means at hand, was no excuse. The means could have been and should have been provided.

Another objection is made, that the locus is not sufficiently specific. On general demurrer, we are inclined to hold it is. It is described as a street of the city known as Jefferson street.

The injury was sufficiently established, and also the loss of time and suffering of the plaintiff, and medical attendance, for all which, the sum found by the jury was not more than adequate compensation.

These are all the points raised on the record, and appellant can take nothing by them.

The judgment is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1878–1879: 11882–1883: 11884–1885: 11886–1887: 11888–1889: 11890–1891: 11892–1893: 11898–1899: 11900–1901: 21902–1903: 11908–1909: 11924–1925: 118782026peak 1900 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Chicago & Iowa Railroad v. Russell91 Ill. 298 (1878)
  2. Yocum v. Town of Trenton20 Mo. App. 489 (1886)
  3. City of LaSalle v. Porterfield27 N.E. 937 (Ill. 1891)
  4. City of Chicago v. Dalle5 N.E. 578 (Ill. 1885)
  5. City of Mt. Vernon v. Hoehn53 N.E. 654 (Ind. Ct. App. 1899)
  6. Bonine v. City of Richmond75 Mo. 437 (1882)

Most recent

  1. Mowery v. City of Mounds245 Ill. App. 338 (1925)
  2. Karczenska v. City of Chicago88 N.E. 188 (Ill. 1909)
  3. City of McLeansboro v. Trammel109 Ill. App. 524 (1903)
  4. City of Chicago v. Gillett.91 Ill. App. 287 (1900)
  5. City of Chicago v. Gillett108 Ill. App. 455 (1900)
  6. City of Mt. Vernon v. Hoehn53 N.E. 654 (Ind. Ct. App. 1899)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list