osnomzm v. crrv or onrnorr. 37
. 5. Snm—S·ra·ru·rn Lnurrmo Rncovmav—Rnrnosrncrrvn Ormwrxon.
A statute passed after the accident had taken place, limiting the amount of
recovery in such cases, was held to be prospective only, and aving no bear-
ing upon the plaintiffs right to recover f ldamages. A statute should be
held to operate prospectively only, unless its terms show clearly a legislative
intent that it should have a retroactive effect.
6. Samm—Crrv Pnormvrv Occormn BY Aemnrs or Burn.
The accident occurred upon a sidewalk in front of property belongincg to
the city, but in charge of the police commissioners, who were appoiute by
the governor of the state. Held, that it was the duty of the city to keep the
sidewalk in repair. and that such duty was not lessened by the fact that the
lot was occupied by agents of the state.
, 7. Slmn—CoNrarnuronr Nnenremncn.
The testimony showed that plaintiff walked along the street without pay-
ing attention to the sidewalk, and that it was notoriously rotten, so that any
one could see the earth beneath the plank. Held, that the question of con- _
tributory negligence was for the jury.
8. SAME-·—PBOXIMITY ro Ponrcm Surron.
There was no error in calling the attention of the jury to the fact that the
accident occurred in front of the police station, and within sight of the ofli-
cers whose duty it was to have charge of the station.
9. SAME.-—DELAY in CALLING Pursrcum. `
The fact that the plaintiff did not send for a physician until some time after
the accident had occurred, was held proper evidence of contributory negli-
gence to go to the jury, but not conclusive. . ·
. 10. Sana-—AMoun·r or Rmcovnnv. _ .
Where the plaintiff suffered a complete paralysis of the right side, held, that
a verdict of $10,000 was not excessive. V
(Syllabus by the Oowrt.) _ *
On Motion of Defendant for a New Trial. A
F. H. Oauyield, for plaintiff. H. M. Dujidd, for defendant.
Bnown, J . The plaintiff in this case obtained a verdict of $10,000
for personal injuries received by her in falling upon a defective sidewalk
upon the north side of Church street in this city, between Michigan and
Trumbull avenues. Defendant now moves for a new trial upon _the fol-
lowing grounds:
1. The admission of the testimony of Bateson in regard to the accident
to himself and wife, and the precautions they took afterwards. Bateson
testified, in substance, to the defective condition of the walk at that
place, and that about two months before the accident he and his wife ‘
met with aslight accident there, and that after that they always walked
in single Gle. We take it that similar accidents, occurring in the same
neighborhood, may be shown as evidence, not only of the actual condi-
tion of the walk, but as tending to show notice to the city. It is true
that the Massachusetts cases hold that this evidence is not admissible,
upon the ground that it raises a collateral issue which the defendant is
not called upon to try, and he therefore may well claim to be surprised.
The weight of authority, however, is decidedly the other way. See Del-
phi v. Loweryls Adm’x, 74 Ind. 521, in which all the former cases are re-
viewed. So far as the federal courts are concerned, the question has
been put at rest by the case of District of Columbia v. Armes, 107 U. S.
519, 2 Sup. `Ct. Rep. 840, which was also an action for damages re-
ceived by a person from a fall caused by a defective sidewalk in the city`