Case Name: Catherine Pfeifer v. The Town of Lake
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1890-12-11
Citations: 37 Ill. App. 367
Docket Number: 
Parties: Catherine Pfeifer v. The Town of Lake.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 367–374

Head Matter:
Catherine Pfeifer v. The Town of Lake.
Municipal Corporations — Negligence—Step in Sidewalk — Personal Injuries.
1. The question as to whether there was negligence in the manner of constructing a given sidewalk is for the jury.
2. Municipal authorities are responsible for the proper construction of their sidewalks.
3. In an action brought to recover from a municipality for a personal injury alleged to have been occasioned by a step in one of its sidewalks, this court holds that the trial court erred in instructing the jury, at the close of the plaintiff’s testimony, to find for the defendant, and that the case should have been left to the jury, in order that they might determine, from all the evidence, whether the sidewalk was in proper condition or defective, and whether the injury was due to such defect, if any, or to negligence or want of care on part of the plaintiff.
[Opinion filed December 11, 1890.]
Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Elliott Anthony, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. Whitehead & Pickard, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.

Opinion:
Moran, P. J.
This action was brought to recover for injuries sustained by appellant, by falling upon the sidewalk in the night time. The evidence tended to show that on the night of March 10, 1887, the plaintiff was walking with her husband south on Stewart avenue, in the town of Lake. It was dark, and she could not see, and in going along she suddenly fell down a step, which was in the sidewalk at that point, and was injured. The step was a descent of some twelve inches from the sidewalk, along which she had approached, to a continuation thereof on a lower grade, and the walk had been built in that manner some six months before.
A gas lamp, which stood near by this point where the step was, had not been lighted on the evening of the accident, and the light from more distant lamps was obstructed by heavy trees on both sides of the walk, so that the point where this descent was, was in darkness, and one walking along there could not see that there was a change in the grade of the walk.
The court, at the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, instructed the jury to find for the defendant. We think there was a question for the jury on this state of facts. It can not be said as a matter of law that such construction of the sidewalk, and leaving it unlit at night, is not negligence. The question of whether there was negligence in so constructing the walk was one of fact.
The town authorities were responsible for the proper construction of this sidewalk. It is their duty to see that such structures are properly made and reasonably safe. Alexander v. Mount Sterling, 71 Ill. 366; Dillon Mun. Cor., Sec. 1003, and cases cited.
The case should have been left to the jury, so that they might determine from all the evidence whether the sidewalk was in proper condition, or defectively constructed, and whether the injury to plaintiff was due to such defect, if any, or to her own negligence or want of care. Clemence v. City of Auburn, 66 N. Y. 334; City of Chicago v. Gallagher, 44 Ill. 295; City of Chicago v. Langloss, 66 Ill. 366.
Negligence, whether of plaintiff or defendant, is a question of fact for the jury on all the evidence. Fisher v. Cook, 23 Ill. App. 621; Wight Fire Proofing Co. v. Poczekai, 30 Ill. App. 266; Same case, 130 Ill. 139.
For the error in taking the case from the1 jury, the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded.
Reversed and remanded.