
    City of Chenoa v. Nevada Kramer.
    1. Sidewalks—Where Municipality is Responsible for Injuries Caused by Defects in.—Where a sidewalk is old and rotten and this condition has existed so long that it should be inferred that the city authorities knew of it, the city is liable for injuries resulting from such condition to a person in the exercise of proper care.
    Trespass on the Case, for personal injuries. Appeal from the Circuit Court of McLean County; the Hon. Colostin D. Myers, Judge presiding. Heard in this court at the November term, 1902.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed April 30, 1903.
    James L. Loar, attorney for appellant.
    Welty & Sterling, attorneys for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Wright

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit by the appellee against appellant for injuries in consequence of a defective sidewalk, and, the verdict being for $450, the court overruled appellant’s motion for a new trial, and gave judgment upon the verdict, to reverse which this appeal is brought, and it is argued that the verdict is unsupported by the evidence, the damages are excessive, the court erred in its rulings upon the evidence and in its instructions to the jury.

We find no prejudicial error in the rulings upon the evidence or the instructions in the case. The evidence proves that the sidewalk was old and rotten, and this condition had existed so long, that it should be inferred the city authorities knew of it. There is no doubt, from the evidence, that the sidewalk is within the city limits, notwithstanding appellant asserts there is no proof of that. One of the boards, having been stepped on by appellee, broke and caused her to fall and thereby she was injured. The jury saw the witnesses and heard the evidence concerning the nature of the injuries inflicted upon appellee, and we are unable to say the amount of damages awarded by the jury are unreasonable or excessive. The jury were justified in finding she was in the exercise of proper care. Upon the whole evidence we think the jury were warranted in finding the verdict that was returned and the judgment of the Circuit Court will be affirmed.  