Court Opinion

ID: 9530256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:58:39.752746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:03.163444
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE DOWNING, dissenting: I would grant the petition for rehearing for the following reasons: (1) The failure of the trial court to grant the City of Chicago (City) a jury trial as set forth in my dissent to the majority opinion. (2) The majority opinion holds the City liable because, having installed street lights, it was negligent in permitting the street lights to remain out even though the street itself was not inherently dangerous, nor did it have an obstruction or defective condition which contributed to the incident. . Baran v. City of Chicago Heights (1969), 43 Ill. 2d 177, 251 N.E.2d 227, cited by the majority, is illustrative of the problem I have with the majority opinion. In Baran, the accident occurred at a “T” intersection with no signs, barricades, or reflectors to indicate the street terminated at the “T”. The evidence was in dispute as to the adequacy of the illumination. Under those conditions, the supreme court said, * * * when a city creates a hazardous condition and someone is injured as a consequence it must respond in damages, just as others are required to do.” (43 Ill. 2d 177, 181.) As I read that language, the hazardous condition was the “T” intersection with no signs, barricades, or reflectors to warn a motorist of the hazardous condition. But there is no such hazardous condition in the case at bar. The only basis for imposing liability on the City was the fact that, having installed street lights, in was negligent solely for the reason that the evidence indicates — but not without persuasive dispute — the street lights were out. I would not extend the liability of the City to that extreme, nor do I think a fair reading of the cases relied on by the majority do so. (3) The trial court’s finding that the street lights were out at the time of the occurrence was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. For all these reasons I would allow the petition for rehearing and reverse the finding of the trial court.