Buchmeier v. City of Davenport

• Decision Date: 09 June 1908
• Citation: 138 Iowa 623,116 N.W. 695
• Parties: BUCHMEIER v. CITY OF DAVENPORT.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

138 Iowa 623

116 N.W. 695

BUCHMEIER

v.CITY OF DAVENPORT.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 9, 1908.

Appeal from District Court, Scott County; A. J. House, Judge.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by falling on a crosswalk of defendant city defective by reason of the negligence of the city. At the close of the evidence, the court sustained defendant's motion for a directed verdict in its favor, and, from a judgment on such verdict, the plaintiff appeals. Reversed.Schmidt & Vollmer and E. M. Sharon, for appellant.

Henry Theunen and George W. Scott, for appellee.

McCLAIN, J.

The motion for a directed verdict was sustained on the ground that plaintiff's verified statement of claim for damages required by Code, § 1051 (applicable to cities under special charter), was insufficient. That section requires that such claim shall be presented to the council or filed with the clerk within 30 days after the alleged injury or damage was sustained, and shall state “the amount, nature, and cause of such injury or damage, and the time when and the place where such injury occurred, and the particular defect or negligence of the city or its officers which it is claimed caused or contributed to the injury or damage.” The statements of the notice given are that plaintiff “was injured (on a date named) by falling on a crossing at Ninth and Warren streets, in the said city, the said crossing being at the time very icy and in a dangerous condition, and she, attempting to cross the same in the exercise of due care, fell and injured herself severely, from the effect of which said injuries she is still suffering,” and she demands $500 “for the pain, suffering, and other damages which she has suffered on account of the said injuries which was due to the negligence of the said city in not causing the removal of the said ice and snow at the said place, the same having been in a dangerous condition for a long time prior thereto.” A notice which in fact points out the place of the accident with sufficient definiteness to reasonably enable the officers of the city to investigate the conditions under which it is alleged to have happened sufficiently complies with the purpose of the statute. Now, it does not appear in this record that there was any other crossing at Ninth and Warren streets in the defendant city than the one on which the plaintiff was injured, and if, on proceeding to the crossing of said streets, the officers would have found but...