Heath v. City of Chicago, 186 Ill. App. 65 (1914)

April 21, 1914 · Illinois Appellate Court · Gen. No. 19,321

186 Ill. App. 65

Ida M. Heath, Appellee, v. City of Chicago, Appellant.

Gen. No. 19,321.

(Hot to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. H. Sterling Pomeroy, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 21, 1914.

Rehearing denied May 5, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Ida M. Heath against City of Chicago for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant in maintaining a defective and dangerous sidewalk. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $5,950, defendant appeals.

The grounds urged for reversal of the judgment are: That the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence; that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence; that the court erroneously refused to submit two special interrogatories to the jury; and that the court erred in the giving and refusing of instructions.

The interrogatories claimed to have been improperly refused are as follows:

“ First. Was the accident occasioned proximately by a defective plan of construction of the place in question?

Second. Was the place of the alleged defect in the same condition on the 17th day of February, A. D. 1911, at the time of the accident as it was at the time of the construction?”

William H. Sexton and N. L. Piotrowski, for appellant ; David R. Levy, of counsel.

Elmer & Cohen, for appellee.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Municipal corporations, § 1007 ^* —when city liable for injuries resulting from hole in sidewalk. In an action against a City for personal injuries resulting from plaintiff stepping into a hole in a sidewalk at the time a trap door was in course of construction, a verdict for plaintiff held sustained by the evidence.

2. Trial, § 276 ^* —when special interrogatories may be refused. Refusal of court to submit to jury special interrogatories which do not relate to an ultimate fact, and the most that can he said of them is that they relate merely to facts that possibly might tend, more or less, to establish the ultimate facts upon which the rights of the parties depend, held not error.

* See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Clark

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Damages, § 110 ^* —when verdict for pergonal injuries not excessive. A verdict of $5,950 for personal injuries held not excessive, it appearing that the plaintiffs hip was broken and the femur fractured and there was evidence tending to show that the injuries will be permanent and that she will never be able to walk without the aid of crutches.

4. Appeal and ebbob, § 1561 ^* -—when refusal of requested instructions not error. Refusal of requested instruction covered by other instructions held not error.