Weirs v. Jones Cnty.

• Decision Date: 25 October 1892
• Citation: 53 N.W. 321,86 Iowa 625
• Parties: WEIRS v. JONES COUNTY.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

86 Iowa 625

53 N.W. 321

WEIRS

v.JONES COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 25, 1892.

Appeal from district court, Jones county; JAMES D. GIFFEN, Judge.

The plaintiff seeks by this action to recover damages for the killing of two horses and the destruction of a wagon by the breaking down of a bridge which was built and maintained by the county. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals.Sheean & McCarn, for appellant.

F. O. Ellison, for appellee.

ROTHROCK, J.

This is the second appeal in this case. See 80 Iowa, 351, 45 N. W. Rep. 883. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff upon the first trial. The judgment was reversed upon. what was thought by this court to be error in certain instructions given by the court to the jury. The questions there determined are not involved in this appeal. The evidence on both trials was substantially the same, and presents the following state of facts, which we now copy from the opinion on the former appeal: “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, signboards 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 three hundred feet in length, and eighteen or twenty feet above the water of the steam. 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 on the last trial instructed the jury as follows: “If the notices, or the notices and wires together, were sufficient to notify a person exercising...