Barker v. Inc. Town of Perry

• Decision Date: 20 October 1885
• Parties: BARKER v. INCORPORATED TOWN OF PERRY.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

67 Iowa 146

25 N.W. 100

BARKER

v.INCORPORATED TOWN OF PERRY.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed October 20, 1885.

Appeal from Dallas circuit court,

This is an action to recover damages for a personal injury which the plaintiff alleges she received by reason of a defective sidewalk on one of the streets of the town of Perry. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals.Cardell & Shortley, for the town of Perry.

H. A. Hoyt nd T. R. North, for appellee, A. M. Barker.

ROTHROCK, J.

1. It is claimed in the petition that the plaintiff was injured by stepping into an opening in a sidewalk. There are the usual allegations as to the defect, and notice to the officers of the town, and failure to repair, and that plaintiff was free from negligence. The answer was in substance a general denial. The plaintiff claimed that she was injured in her hand and wrist, and she was permitted, against the defendant's objection, to exhibit her hand and wrist to the jury for their inspection. It is claimed that this was error. In all actions for injuries to the person, injuries upon the person may be shown to the jury and inspected by them. So, in the trial of criminal assaults, we think it is the universal practice to exhibit the wounds upon the person to the jury. This kind of evidence is of an important and satisfactory nature. It brings before the jury part of the res gestœ and enables them to determine the nature and character of the injury better than to receive it in a secondary way, as it must be when described by witnesses. The practice of permitting persons who sue for personal injuries to exhibit to the jury their wounds or injured limbs has been too long sanctioned in this state to be now called in question. Mulhado v. Railroad Co., 30 N. Y. 370.

2. A few days after the plaintiff received the injury a photographic view was taken of the defective walk. The evidence showed that the walk was in the same condition when the view was taken that it was when plaintiff was injured. The photograph was introduced in evidence by the plaintiff against the objection of the defendant. In connection with it the plaintiff handed a magnifying glass to the jury, to enable them to make a minute examination of the photograph, and the jury were permitted to take the photograph and magnifying glass with them to the jury-room when they retired to deliberate upon the case. The defendant excepted to this action of the court, and assigns error thereon. Photographic views of streets, buildings, railroad tracks, bridges, and many other objects are frequently found in the abstracts of cases submitted to this court, having been used as evidence in the trial courts. They are used to identify the objects to which the evidence relates, and, being an exact reproduction of the object they represent, they are much more satisfactory evidence of the appearance of the thing represented than can be conveyed to the mind by any description given by a witness. We think, whereever it is important that the locus in quo or any object be described to a jury, it is competent to introduce a photographic view. It appears to have met...