From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sheffield v. City of Chicago

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District
Mar 11, 1946
328 Ill. App. 321 (Ill. App. Ct. 1946)

Opinion

Gen. No. 43,599. (Abstract of Decision.)

Opinion filed March 11, 1946 Rehearing denied March 25, 1946 Released for publication March 25, 1946

HIGHWAYS AND STREETS, § 582lack of due care on part of injured pedestrian as question for jury in action against city and abutting owner. In pedestrian's action against city and abutting owner for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when, in nighttime, cover on coal hole in public sidewalk tipped up and plaintiff went partially down into hole, held, following verdict and judgment for plaintiff, that, under evidence, question of lack of due care on part of plaintiff was question for jury whose answer to question was, on record on city's appeal to Appellate Court, binding on such court.

See Callaghan's Illinois Digest, same topic and section number.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOHN F. BOLTON, Judge, presiding.

Affirmed. Heard in the first division, first district, this court at the December term, 1945.

Barnet Hodes, Corporation Counsel, for appellant;

J. Herzl Segal, Head of Appeals and Review Division, Adam E. Patterson and Herman Smith, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel;

Royal W. Irwin, for appellee;

Clarence M. Dunagan, of counsel.


Not to be published in full. Opinion filed March 11, 1946; rehearing denied March 25, 1946; released for publication March 25, 1946.


Summaries of

Sheffield v. City of Chicago

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District
Mar 11, 1946
328 Ill. App. 321 (Ill. App. Ct. 1946)
Case details for

Sheffield v. City of Chicago

Case Details

Full title:Marjorie E. Sheffield, Appellee, v. City of Chicago et al., Defendants…

Court:Appellate Court of Illinois, First District

Date published: Mar 11, 1946

Citations

328 Ill. App. 321 (Ill. App. Ct. 1946)
65 N.E.2d 486

Citing Cases

Bunch v. Rose

For reasons best known to themselves, counsel, during the trial, were content to let the testimony be adduced…