{
  "id": 5111537,
  "name": "The City of Springfield v. Michael Burns",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Springfield v. Burns",
  "decision_date": "1893-10-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "595",
  "last_page": "596",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "51 Ill. App. 595"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 229,
    "char_count": 2857,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.462,
    "sha256": "cc0203515a56de42e1195c233ec83448589d713ba0977116286a616f328c263a",
    "simhash": "1:8a0b75e0411d8454",
    "word_count": 512
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:15.137575+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The City of Springfield v. Michael Burns."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Wall\ndelivered the opinion oe the Court.\nThe appellee recovered a judgment for \u00a7300, on account of personal injury sustained by reason of a defective sidewalk.\nThe brief of appellant is confined mainly to a discussion of the evidence.\nThe plaintiff was no doubt injured by stepping into a hole in the walk where the plank had worn, or been broken off, and there was evidence tending to show that the defect had been there long enough to charge the city with notice.\nThe only difficult question of fact was whether the plaintiff used ordinary care. It appears that a short distance west of where the injury occurred the walk was in a worse condition than there\u2014that the plaintiff passed over that part of the walk in safety\u2014and that when he got to the point in question he went along the north edge of the walk to avoid the mud and slush which covered the middle and the south side.\nIn doing so he stepped in the hole. It is argued that by the exercise of proper care he could have avoided the injury. It was dark, or nearly so, and misty, and for this reason he failed to see the dangerous place, as he says. Whether he exercised the proper degree of care was for the jury\u2014 and we think there is enough evidence to warrant their conclusion on this point.\nThat the city was in fault is clear enough. The court instructed the jury very fully upon the duty of the plaintiff to exercise ordinary care, and the city has no occasion to complain in this respect.\nIt is urged, however, that the court erred in modifying an instruction which was intended to advise- the jury that the city was bound to keep its walks in reasonable repair but not for their entire width. The modification consisted in striking out the words tut not for their entvre width. This was right. The duty of the city is not limited to any part of the walk.\nPersons may properly travel along the edge of a sidewalk at any time and more especially so when it is apparently necessary in order to avoid mud and slush on the other portions thereof. We find no error and must affirm the judgment.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Wall"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Davis McKeown, city attorney, and Connolly & Mather, for appellant.",
      "John 0. Snigg, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Third District\nMay Term, 1893.\nThe City of Springfield v. Michael Burns.\n1. Negligence\u2014Exercise of Ordinary Care.\u2014In actions for personal injuries the question as to whether the plaintiff was in the exercise of ordinary care is a question of fact for the jury.\n2. Instructions\u2014Cities and Villages\u2014Sidewalks.\u2014An instruction that a city is not bound to keep its walks in reasonable repair for their entire width, is erroneous.\nMemorandum.\u2014Action for personal injuries. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon County; the Hon. James A. Creighton, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the May term, 1893, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed October 28, 1893.\nThe opinion states the case.\nDavis McKeown, city attorney, and Connolly & Mather, for appellant.\nJohn 0. Snigg, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0595-01",
  "first_page_order": 591,
  "last_page_order": 592
}