{
  "id": 5164447,
  "name": "City of Joliet v. Eliza H. Youngs",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Joliet v. Youngs",
  "decision_date": "1895-12-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "589",
  "last_page": "591",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "61 Ill. App. 589"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "29 Ill. App. 500",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ill. 475",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2634574
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/69/0475-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "126 Ill. 408",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5404357
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/126/0408-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 Ill. 490",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 265,
    "char_count": 3559,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.535,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.548627546539126e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2847584936419073
    },
    "sha256": "19d70f83f22177d9b67e43268fc080b8c4be28dc5f05ecb97c115f70cecfd8b0",
    "simhash": "1:5bdd089a9c01cefd",
    "word_count": 616
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:50:02.966731+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "City of Joliet v. Eliza H. Youngs."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Harker\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis is an appeal from a judgment of $1,500, recovered by appellee against the city of Joliet, as damages for injuries sustained by her in falling on a defective sidewalk.\nWhile it is contended that the court admitted improper testimony-\u2014gave improper instructions and refused others offered by appellant which were proper\u2014-the chief ground upon which a reversal is asked, is that the verdict is against the evidence.\nThe evidence in the record shows that appellee, a feeble old lady of sixty-seven'years, was passing south on the east side of Chicago street, in Joliet, in company with her daughter, and when in the act of stepping from the main sidewalk onto the cross-walk at the intersection of that street with Clinton street she fell and was very seriously injured.\nAt this point there is a large stone in the walk four feet and four inches by six feet and eight inches, from the corner of which was a loose and broken part which moved and rocked when stepped upon. It had been in that condition for months prior to the accident; so long that the city authorities might have discovered it by reasonable diligence. It was negligence to allow it to remain so. It was such a defect as would entitle a party to recover, if injured by reason thereof, while in the exercise of reasonable carg.\nWhile the evidence is not entirely clear that appellee tripped upon the broken piece, it is of such a character as justifies us in saying that the verdict of the jury should not be disturbed on that ground.\nThere is no reason for the contention that appellee was not at the time in the exercise of reasonable care. True, she was old and rather feeble, but she was in company with her daughter, who was watchful of her mother, and was, at the time, pursuing her way with all the care required by the law.\nAn action lies against a municipal corporation on behalf of one who, while in the exercise of reasonable care for his safety, sustains injuries by reason of the negligent failure to perform its duty of keeping its sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition and repair for the use of persons traveling thereon. Joliet v. Conway, 119 Ill. 490; Rock Island v. Cuinelly, 126 Ill. 408; Chicago v. Kelley, 69 Ill. 475; Carterville v. Cook, 29 Ill. App. 500.\nUnder the declaration, and upon the evidence, the jury were justified in the verdict rendered.\nThere was no serious error committed by the court either in the admission of evidence or in passing upon instructions.\nThe first instruction given for appellee embodied the substantial averments of one count in the declaration. We can not see how this was prejudicial to the interests of the defendant. We have carefully examined the instruction and see nothing wrong in it.\nWe are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Harker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John W. D\u2019Arcey, attorney for appellant.",
      "George S. Hinckel, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "City of Joliet v. Eliza H. Youngs.\n1. Municipal Corporations\u2014Liability for Failing to Keep Sidewalks in Repair.\u2014An action lies against a municipal corporation on behalf of one who, while in the exercise of reasonable care for his safety, sustains injuries by reason of the negligent failure to perform its duty in keeping its sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition and repair for the use of persons traveling thereon.\nTrespass on the Case, for personal injuries. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will County; the Hon. Charles Blanchard, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the May term, 1895.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 10, 1895.\nJohn W. D\u2019Arcey, attorney for appellant.\nGeorge S. Hinckel, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0589-01",
  "first_page_order": 587,
  "last_page_order": 589
}