Chicago Vs Mcdonald

Chicago vs mcdonald

Word count: 1, What is this page?

Mcdonald Vs Chicago Essay

Every document on this site is part of the official caselaw of a court within the United States, scanned from the collection of the Harvard Law School Library. Learn more. City of Chicago v.

McDonald, Ill. Catherine McDonald City of Chicago v. Catherine McDonald.

Snow and obstructions—right of municipality to compel removal of. In Illinois, a municipality cannot, by ordinance, compel the owner or occupant of property to remove snow or keep the sidewalk free from obstructions. Sidewalk—duty of municipality with respect to.

A municipality is bound with respect to the accumulation of ice and snow upon its sidewalks only to the exercise of reasonable care to see that they are reasonably safe for persons exercising ordinary care, and this does not mean that a failure to keep sidewalks clear of ice and snow renders chicago vs mcdonald liable to persons who may fall by reason thereof. Sidewalk—liability of municipality for slippery condition of.

vBulletin Message

An injury resulting from a mere slippery condition of a sidewalk, as distinguished from an injury resulting from an attempt to pass over or chicago vs mcdonald an obstruction thereof, due to a like cause, does not render the municipality liable. Action on the case for personal injuries. Russell P. Goodwin, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, Opinion filed December 18, John E. Owens, City Attorney, and John T. Fleming, for appellant; William J. Stapleton, of counsel.

Compare company information

Lynn, for appellee. Satement by the Court.

Justice Baker delivered the opinion of the court. The sidewalk upon which plaintiff fell was stone, at least ten feet wide, level and free from anjr defect. Upon the question of damages the verdict was reasonable and there was evidence of both actual and constructive notice to the city of the condition of the sidewalk.]