Weirs v. Jones Cnty.
Decision Date | 29 May 1890 |
Citation | 80 Iowa 351,45 N.W. 883 |
Parties | WEIRS v. JONES COUNTY. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Jones county, J. D. GIFFEN, Judge.
Action to recover damages caused by the falling of a bridge. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. The defendant appeals.F. O. Ellison, for appellant.
Sheean & McCarn, for appellee.
It is conceded that the bridge in question was a county bridge, and that it was known to the board of supervisors of defendant to be in an unsafe condition prior to the time of its falling. About the 4th day of September, 1888, the board caused it to be examined and condemned. By authority and direction of the board, sign-boards bearing, in large letters, the words “Bridge unsafe” were prepared; and, on the 5th day of September, 1888, one was nailed up at each end of the bridge, in a conspicuous place. In addition, at one end of the bridge two wires were stretched across the bridge at about the height of the breast of a horse, and securely fastened to the sides by means of staples; and a wire was stretched and fastened in a similar manner at the other end of the bridge. The bridge was in an isolated place, and was used but little. It was about 300 feet in length, and 18 or 20 feet above the water of the stream. On the 9th day of September, 1888, the plaintiff crossed the bridge in the morning without accident. The signs were then on the bridge, and the wires were there, but loosened at one end, and thrown to one side, in such a manner as not to form any obstruction to the crossing of the bridge. Plaintiff claims that he could not read English, and that he did not see the signs nor the wires, and did not know the condition of the bridge, not having been to it for a year before. On his return in the evening the bridge fell while he was on it with his team, and as a result his horses were killed, and the wagon was damaged. The court instructed the jury as follows: Appellant complains of this instruction on the ground that it makes defendant responsible for damages which resulted from its failure to continue and maintain the notices and obstructions, even though it used ordinary and reasonable care...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rathbone v. Fort Pitt Bridge Works
...324, 326. In point: City of Richmond v. Poore, 109 Va. 313, 63 S.E. 1014; Raymond v. Keseberg, 91 Wis. 191, 64 N.W. 861; Weirs v. Jones County, 80 Iowa 351, 45 N.W. 883; Mullen v. Town of Rutland, 55 Vt. 77; Klatt City of Milwaukee, 53 Wis. 196, 10 N.W. 162, 40 Am.Rep. 759; 5 Blashfield Cyc......
-
Walker v. City of Ann Arbor
... ... 162; Mullen v. Town of Rutland, 55 Vt. 77; ... Raymond v. Keseberg (Wis.) 64 N.W. 861; Weirs v ... Jones Co., 80 Iowa, 351, 45 N.W. 883 ... We do ... not discover any error in ... ...
- Weirs v. Jones County