## Facts

- The City of Bloomington built and maintained a public street fountain intended for drinking water and watering horses.
- Water flowed into a basin through metal spouts that allegedly projected and were bent so as to form hooks where horses’ bridles would contact while drinking.
- The complaint alleged the spout design made bridles likely to catch when horses lifted their heads and that the city had notice of this danger.
- On September 10, 1889, Silas M. Legg, while exercising due care, stopped his team and allowed the horses to drink at the fountain while he rode an oil wagon.
- A horse’s bridle caught on a bent spout and was pulled off; the horses ran away without Legg’s fault, throwing him from the wagon.
- The wagon overturned onto Legg, causing fatal injuries.
- Legg’s father, as administrator of his estate, sued the city for wrongful death; the city pleaded not guilty.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence of prior similar accidents at the same fountain was admissible to show the spouts’ dangerous character and the city’s notice of the hazard.
2. Whether such prior-accident evidence should be excluded because the city claimed the spouts had been materially changed between earlier incidents and the fatal accident.
3. Whether evidence of changes or precautions taken after accidents could be used to prove negligence in the original construction or maintenance.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff.
- Evidence of other accidents caused by the fountain spouts was admissible for the limited purposes of showing dangerousness and municipal notice, if occurring under substantially similar conditions.
- Evidence of later precautions or alterations was not admissible to prove negligence in the original design or maintenance.
- The jury instructions adequately limited the use of the prior-accident evidence by directing the jury to disregard it if it found the spouts had been materially changed before the decedent’s accident.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence of prior accidents involving the same instrumentality and occurring under substantially similar conditions may be admitted to show (a) a dangerous condition and (b) the defendant’s knowledge or notice.
- Substantial similarity is a prerequisite to using prior-accident evidence; disputes about similarity generally affect probative value and are managed through the trial court’s control and limiting instructions.
- Evidence of subsequent remedial measures (repairs, alterations, or added precautions after an accident) is not admissible to prove prior negligence, though it may be relevant for other limited purposes (such as addressing whether conditions differed at different times).
- When potentially prejudicial evidence is admitted for a limited purpose, a proper limiting instruction can prevent reversible error.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a wrongful-death verdict against the city, holding that prior similar accidents were properly admitted to show the fountain’s dangerous condition and the city’s notice, while later modifications could not be treated as proof of negligence, and the jury was adequately instructed to consider similarity and changed conditions.


City of Bloomington v. Legg, 37 N.E. 696 (Ill. 1894)