{
  "id": 2969494,
  "name": "Malachi Quinn, Appellee, v. City of Chicago, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Quinn v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1916-05-12",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,301",
  "first_page": "416",
  "last_page": "417",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "199 Ill. App. 416"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 245,
    "char_count": 3262,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.533,
    "sha256": "9860cde59337c00c5d23f9902695360bb586882d6e68857d1c632d09b449e2e1",
    "simhash": "1:03348187560cc0fc",
    "word_count": 555
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:30.955611+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Malachi Quinn, Appellee, v. City of Chicago, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Pam\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Pam"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Richard S. Folsom and Charles R. Francis, for appellant; David R. Levy, of counsel.",
      "Gorman, Pollock & Livingston, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Malachi Quinn, Appellee, v. City of Chicago, Appellant.\nGen. No. 21,301.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Daniel W. Maddox, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 12, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction on the case by Malachi Quinn, plaintiff, against City of Chicago, defendant, to recover damages for an injury sustained by falling on a defective sidewalk. On the trial below, the jury returned a verdict of guilty, assessing plaintiff\u2019s damages in the sum of $2,500, and from the judgment entered thereon, defendant has prosecuted this appeal.\nThe evidence on behalf of the plaintiff showed that he was sixty-one years of age; that during the night before and on that morning of the accident there had been a heavy snowfall which covered the sidewalks and streets; that plaintiff was walking east on the north side of the street when he suddenly stepped into a depression in the sidewalk and wa\u00a7 thrown to the ground, sustaining the injuries for which this suit was brought; that the depression in the sidewalk into which plaintiff fell was due to an entire panel or block of cement having been in some way removed from said sidewalk severalmonths previously; that on the morning in question, by reason of the snowfall, the entire sidewalk w;as covered evenly with snow, so that any depression therein wotild be unnoticeable; that plaintiff was unacquainted with the neighborhood and knew nothing about the condition of this sidewalk; that at the time of the accident he was walking along slowly and carefully and was in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety.\nThere were five other witnesses, all of whom testified that at the time of the accident there was a panel of cement missing from the sidewalk and that said walk had been in such condition for several months prior to the accident. Two of these were eye witnesses to the accident and corroborated the testimony of the plaintiff as to the manner in which it occurred.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nMunicipal corporations, \u00a7 1098 \u2014when evidence sufficient to support verdict in an action for injury hy defect in sideicalh. In an action against a municipal corporation for injuries alleged to have been caused by a defect in a sidewalk, evidence examined and held to support a verdict for the plaintiff.\nThe sole defense relied upon at the trial was that at the time and place of. the accident no cement block was missing from the sidewalk, at the place of the accident. It was not denied that a cement block had been missing but it was claimed that such block had been replaced before the accident and that the sidewalk thereafter, up to and including the time of the accident, continued to be in good condition. Defendant introduced the testimony of five witnesses which tended to show that about four months prior to the accident, the cement panel that had been removed was replaced.\nRichard S. Folsom and Charles R. Francis, for appellant; David R. Levy, of counsel.\nGorman, Pollock & Livingston, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0416-01",
  "first_page_order": 438,
  "last_page_order": 439
}