Disbrowe v. Tucker
Decision Date | 17 October 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 55715,55715 |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Parties | Nadine DISBROWE, Appellee, v. Elon G. TUCKER and David Tucker, Appellants. |
Whitfield, Musgrave, Selvy, Kelly & Eddy, by A. Roger Witke and David L. Phipps, Des Moines, for appellants.
Pasley, Singer, Seiser & Pasley, by C. A. Pasley and Stevan A. Holm, Ames, for appellee.
Heard before MOORE, C.J., and MASON, RAWLINGS, LeGRAND and UHLENHOPP, JJ.
Trial to the court resulted in judgment for plaintiff on her action for damages resulting from a fall on the sidewalk adjacent to defendants' dental office property and they appeal. We reverse.
To the extent here relevant plaintiff's petition alleges she went to defendants' office in Boone December 21, 1968, for the purpose of paying a bill. In departing she slipped on a patch of ice located on the sidewalk extending from defendants' property to the curb; the fall and resulting injuries were proximately caused by negligence on the part of defendants in failing to properly treat or keep the walk free of ice and snow.
Briefly stated the trial record reveals plaintiff fell on a public sidewalk with no showing that the fall causing ice accumulation resulted from other than natural conditions.
In light of our holding, Infra, there is no need to discuss the pleading related motions and attendant rulings.
At close of all evidence trial court, as aforesaid, entered judgment for plaintiff.
In support of a reversal defendants assert, among other things which need not be instantly considered, the evidence was insufficient to sustain a finding of negligence on their part. We agree.
I. In Frantz v. Knights of Columbus, 205 N.W.2d 705, 708 (Iowa 1973), is this apt statement:
See also Omaha Standard, Inc. v. Nissen, 187 N.W.2d 721, 723 (Iowa 1971).
Absent any determination as to where the fall occurred trial court merely found plaintiff fell and broke her leg as the result of defendants' negligence. Attendant conclusions of law consist of nothing more than the citation of three cases and one annotation.
We are thus called upon to deduce as best possible the underlying premise upon which trial court determined plaintiff was entitled to recover from defendants.
II. A finding of actionable negligence on the part of these defendants necessaily presupposes trial court found they breached a duty owing to plaintiff. See Frantz v. Knights of Columbus, 205 N.W.2d at 708--709; Restatement, Second, Torts, § 281; 57 Am.Jur.2d, Negligence, § 1; 65 C.J.S., Negligence, § 4(1).
Mindful thereof we need only take note...
To continue reading
Request your trial- State v. Beeman, 65970
-
Baker v. Beal, 56782
...Inc. v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co., 261 Iowa 155, 156, 153 N.W.2d 480, 481 (1967), nor to its application of rules of law, Disbrowe v. Tucker, 211 N.W.2d 318, 320 (Iowa 1973). In a legal malpractice action against these defendant-lawyers we hold they shall not be heard to argue plaintiff's under......
-
Lattimer v. Frese, 2--57088
...for injury resulting from snow or ice on the public sidewalk coming thereon from natural causes, as this snow and ice did. Disbrowe v. Tucker, 211 N.W.2d 318 (Iowa); 39 Am.Jur.2d Highways, Streets & Bridges § 517 at 918; 63 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 862 at Here again, of course, the a......
-
Rockafellow v. Rockwell City
...actionable negligence under the facts of this case. V. We spoke to the questions presented by this appeal recently in Disbrowe v. Tucker, 211 N.W.2d 318 (Iowa 1973). At page 320 of the cited case, we 'A finding of actionable negligence on the part of these defendants necessarily presupposes......