Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

subject as treated here will not attempt to state the principles or give the conditions which establish a legal liability. These will be considered later in those sections discussing the liability of public corporations.

yers who may be said to have developed the business in Chicago to its present alarming proportions are supplemented by a class of physicians who are also recognized as specialists in this line. Working together these two classes of professionals have become experts, managing their cases with skill and audacity, having all the advantage over the city in the collection of evidence and in almost every instance securing either a confession of judgment or a verdict. Usually the suit is brought from one to two years after the accident occurs. The law department of the city has meager data on which to prepare its defense. It frequently happens that there has been a change of officials in the department and that the former incumbents are arrayed with the prosecution, armed with information obtained from the department files. It is estimated in the city attorney's office-basing the calculation on past experience that the cases now pending will eventually mulct the city in the amount of $4,500,000 or $5,000,000 (this in addition to the $4,000,000 of judgments now standing).

"Attorneys who have had much experience in the city's defense expressed the opinion that a large percentage of the suits are spurious, being brought for slight injury, or no injury at all, while in other cases the injuries are such as to warrant only very small damages. In many instances the defense finds it advisable to confess judgment rather than

risk having a verdict rendered for an exorbitant sum. What is most needed is the passage of a law similar to that which was introduced in the Forty-second General Assembly by Mr. Ryan, and in the Forty-third General Assembly by Mr. Smulski, requiring that in every case of accident from defective sidewalks, etc., the plaintiff must make a full and detailed statement within thirty days of the accident, which, together with the attending physicians report and other information, must be filed with the city attorney, and limiting the time for bringing suit for damages to one year from the date of such filing. The passage of these bills was defeated by those interested in the growing business of damage litigation."

The following extracts from the report of John F. Smulski, City Attorney of Chicago, for the year ending December 31st, 1903, are interesting and point a moral as well as adorn a tale:

"This is the most serious problem confronting the city of Chicago at the present time as it has gradually developed into a tremendous drain on the city treasury. The increase in damage suits during the past ten years has been so great as to give just cause for alarm and to warrant the most drastic measures to curb the evil. From a total of forty-six claims pending against the city in 1893, this class of business has grown until on January 1st, 1903, there were 2,526 suits pending against the city and on January 1st,

§ 486. Authority for presentation.

Claims urged against public corporations may be those offered either under some special statutory provision1284 or those for the presentment of which there is no such authority; they include both those sounding in tort and those arising ex contractu. The

1904, in spite of the earnest efforts of this department in attempting to dispose of suits by settlement and trials, the total number of suits pending against the city is 2,876 and the damages asked are $38,666,952." And further on page six it is said: "Another cause for this great increase in personal injury suits during the past ten years may be found in the increased activity of certain lawyers and physicians who make it a special business to stir up litigation of this nature and who have in very many cases entered into a practical partnership arrangement with each other." "There exists in this city today, not only a large number of lawyers who make a specialty of this class of cases but a number of corporations and adjusting agencies organized for the sole purpose of prosecuting claims of this kind. These agencies have a corps of solicitors, intimate relations with certain physicians all over the city and within a few hours after an accident occurs, their representative is on the spot and has secured a case against the city. It will be seen that in a great number of cases, suits are started against the city on the same day as the accident or the day immediately following. In a number of cases, suits have been started against the city even before the police report of the accident has reached the city attorney. These facts, at least, show organization." "Fraudulent cases may be divided into two classes:

First, cases where no accident has ever occurred, and second, cases where a fail may have occurred but no injury sustained-one being manufactured for the occasion. Under existing circumstances, cases of the first kind are only too easily worked up; a deformed or invalid person to act as plaintiff, a bad sidewalk, a few unscrupulous witnesses, a dishonest lawyer and physician; an average jury generally in sympathy with the plaintiff and the city is in a fair way to be mulcted out of thousands of dollars in damages." "There being now outstanding against the city the sum of $4,979,700.81 in judgments, the annual payment of interest amounts to $250,000."

1284 May v. County of Cass, 30 Fed. 762; Irwin v. Yuba County, 119 Cal. 686; Walton v. Riley, 85 Ky. 413, 3 S. W. 605. Art. 2, § 36, Ky. Const., requiring a submission to the people at a general election of a proposition authorizing the incurring of a debt, does not include claims against counties or other subordinate divisions of the state. Davidson v. City of Muskegon, 111 Mich. 454; State v. Smith, 89 Mo. 408; State v. Appleby, 25 S. C. 100; People v. Queens County Sup'rs, 62 Hun, 619, 16 N. Y. Supp. 705; In re Town of Hempstead, 36 App. Div. 321, 55 N. Y. Supp. 345; Bartlett v. Eau Claire County, 112 Wis. 237, 88 N. W. 61.

statutes and charters of the different states and cities providing for the presentment and payment of "claims and demands' vary and no general principle can be stated which would control; their construction depends upon that given by the courts in particular cases.

1285

§ 487. Presentment.

Public opinion has realized to a certain degree the extent and character of claims against public corporations based upon personal injuries, and, in order to check them, statutes have been passed in some states providing for the presentment, allowance

1285 Rankin v. Jauman, 4 Idaho, 394, 39 Pac. 1111; City of Galesburg v. Benedict, 22 Ill. App. 1111. The presentment of a claim on account of a personal injury is not a condition precedent to the commencement of an action.

People v. Saginaw County Sup'rs, 35 Mich. 91; Allen v. Board of State Auditors, 122 Mich. 324, 81 N. W. 113, 47 L. R. A. 117. The word "claim" as used in Const. art. 8, § 4, providing for the adjustment and audit of all claims against the state does not include a gratuity paid a citizen as a recompense for false imprisonment for the alleged commission of a crime. See, also, Roberts v. State, 160 N. Y. 217, which holds under the facts of that case that a claim for damages sustained by an improper conviction and imprisonment for the alleged crime of burglary was not a valid one.

Moran v. City of St. Paul, 54 Minn. 279; State v. Wallichs, 12 Neb. 234; Eastman v. City of Concord, 64 N. H. 263, 8 Atl. 822; People v. Monroe County Sup'rs, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 567; People v. Trustees of Village of Penn Yan, 2 App. Div. 29, 37 N. Y. Supp. 535; Hallinan v. Village of Ft. Edward, 26 Misc. 422, 57 N. Y. Supp. 126; City of Syracuse v. Hubbard,

64 App. Div. 587, 72 N. Y. Supp. 802; Rockefeller v. Taylor, 69 App. Div. 176, 74 N. Y. Supp. 812, reversing 28 Misc. 460, 59 N. Y. Supp. 1038. The audit of claims as a legal charge against the town does not establish the validity of the claim.

Dube v. Peck, 22 R. I. 443, 467, 48 Atl. 477. A claimant may, by the action, waive his right to the claim. Kellogg v. Winnebago County Sup'rs, 42 Wis. 97. A claim for taxes illegally collected need not be presented first to the county board of supervisors before the right of action accrues.

Forest County v. Langlade County, 76 Wis. 605, 45 N. W. 598; Ruggles v. City of Fond du Lac, 53 Wis. 436. The recovery of taxes wrongfully collected is not included within the provisions of the city charter requir ing as a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action on the contract the presentment of a claim to the city council. See, also, cases cited under the last note, § 479. The question of whether the words "claim" or "damage" includes damages and claims based on a tort as well as those arising ex contractu has received a varying construction. Lincoln County v. Oneida County, 80 Wis. 267.

and payment of all claims including those of the character above indicated.1288 These statutes have been adopted not only for the purpose of checking the payment of personal injury claims, but also for the purpose of controlling and regulating claims made against public corporations based upon the rendition of some service or the supply of some commodity. These provisions have been found necessary to prevent the allowance of excessive or fictitious claims through collusion with corrupt or by taking advantage of ignorant or careless public officials,1287 and are considered mandatory in their character.1288

488. Time of presentment.

Provisions regulating the time of presentment of a claim have as their basis the protection of the municipality by requiring a prompt presentation of a claim in order that it may be better passed upon in respect to its legality and soundness. 1299 An investi

1286 Rose v. Estudillo, 39 Cal. 270. But such an act, if including existing claims, is unconstitutional because impairing the validity of a contract. Adams v. City of Modesto (Cal.) 61 Pac. 957; Hamilton County Com'rs v. Tipton County Com'rs, 23 Ind. App. 330; McFarland v. City of Muscatine, 98 Iowa, 199, 67 N. W. 233; Giles v. City of Shenandoah, 111 Iowa, 83, 82 N. W. 466; Mackie v. West Bay City, 106 Mich. 242, 64 N. W. 25. A charter provision in respect to the auditing of accounts against a city held not to apply to a suit for damages on personal injuries. See, also, as holding the same, Davidson v. City of Muskegon, 111 Mich. 454, 69 N. W. 670; Luding ton Water Supply Co v. City of Ludington, 119 Mich. 480, 78 N. W. 558; Whitney v. City of Port Huron, 88 Mich. 268; Ayer v. Town of Somers worth, 66 N. H. 476, 30 Atl. 1119. The claim may be made and filed by an agent or attorney of the complainant. Borst v. Town of Sharon,

24 App. Div. 599, 48 N. Y. Supp. 996. The necessity for statutory requirements in these respects cannot be waived by municipal officers.

1287 State v. Scates, 43 Kan. 330. 1288 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. People, 190 Ill. 20; People v. Manning, 37 App. Div. 141, 55 N. Y. Supp. 781; Green v. Richland County Com'rs, 27 S. C. 9, 2 S. E. 618. South Carolina Gen. St. § 623, providing for a method of allowance of claims by county commissioners held not mandatory in its terms but permissive only in respect to the submission of evidence. State v. Smith, 89 Mo. 408, 14 S. W. 557.

1289 Nicol v. City of St. Paul, 80 Minn. 415, 83 N. W. 375. "The object of giving notice of the injury to the mayor or clerk of the city, undoubtedly was to enable the city by the common council, its governing body, to cause an investigation to be made. It is to be noted that no express duty is enjoined by the charter upon the officer to whom the

gation can be more readily made and the correctness of the facts ascertained at the time or as soon thereafter as possible of the rendition of a service or the happening of an accident.1290 Witnesses can be more readily found; their recollection of the facts

notice must be given. He is not required to make any investigation or cause it to be done. In the absence of any express directions or practice sanctioned by the common council it would be the duty of such officer to call the attention of the council to such notice. The statement of counsel as to the purposes of the general statute is incomplete. Its object in requiring notice of the injury and claim for damages to be given to the governing body of the municipality is not alone to afford an opportunity to settle the claim if a just one, without litigation. Its manifest object was to enable the municipality, by its governing body, to promptly investigate or cause it to be done, as to the time, place and circumstances of the alleged injury, while the witnesses are obtainable and the facts fresh in their recollection, and to settle such claim if found meritorious after such investigation." Whitney v. City of Port Huron, 88 Mich. 268, 50 N. W. 316; Neissen v. City of St. Paul, 80 Minn. 414, 83 N. W. 376; Freligh v. Directors of Saugerties, 70 Hun, 589, 24 N. Y. Supp. 182.

1290 Lee v. Village of Greenwich, 48 App. Div. 391, 63 N. Y. Supp. 160. "If the notice is designed to answer any useful purpose by way of calling the attention of the authorities to the actual facts and conditions which existed at the time and place and which caused the accident and so aid them in forming a judgment as to settlement, it is plain that such a notice as to acci

dents of this nature should be as to 'time' and 'place' specific, and not general and should be as definite and exact as the claimant can reasonably make it. Such a notice is conclusive upon the claimant in any action afterwards brought for injur ies sustained. The time and place cannot be shifted to suit conditions on other days and at other places. It seems to me that this is not such a notice as the law required. 'On or about' a certain day, in such a case is altogether too uncertain and indefinite. Proof, under such a notice, might be given as to the condition of the sidewalk on any day within a range of many days and the exact date of the accident might be shifted to suit the claimant and to suit the record as to the weather and the proof as to the condition of the sidewalk on any particular day within that wide range of “on or about." Neither is the place mentioned in the notice sufficiently definite. Here it is stated to be anywhere on a walk concededly about one-half mile in length for it is not stated on which side of this 100 rod avenue it occurred. It leaves the authorities to guess or search out just where was the place of the accident. They have no power to compel more definite information and they are called upon to examine a half-mile of sidewalk; and in reaching a reasonable conclusion as to whether the claim is a just one and should be audited or settled, and costs of an action avoided, they must necessarily de

« AnteriorContinuar »