Edwards v. Hasel

• Decision Date: 20 November 1912
• Citation: 157 Iowa 416,138 N.W. 501
• Parties: EDWARDS v. HASEL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

157 Iowa 416

138 N.W. 501

EDWARDS

v.HASEL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 20, 1912.

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

Action for damages for a personal injury caused by an obstruction upon the sidewalk, placed thereon by the defendant. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.Thuenen & Shorey, of Davenport, for appellant.

Cook & Balluff, of Davenport, for appellee.

EVANS, J.

We quote from appellant's brief the following statement of facts, which the evidence fairly tends to support: “The defendant is the owner of certain premises in the city of Davenport, Iowa. Said premises were leased by defendant to one Traeger in December, 1908, for a period of five years, and were occupied by a subtenant at the time the injury occurred. The building on said premises extends up to the sidewalk. A cellar window is cut into the sidewalk, and extends about 18 inches out from the building, and is about 2 1/2 feet wide, running alongside of the building. The cellar window has an iron grating over it to prevent persons from stepping into the opening, and during the winter months, and for more than 35 years, has had a wooden covering. This wooden covering is 2 inches thick, and consequently stands 2 inches higher than the surface of the sidewalk. Just east of the cellar window is a door leading into a storeroom, which storeroom was occupied by a subtenant, and was used as a saloon at the time of the accident. On or about March 9, 1909, the plaintiff coming out of the saloon, stepped onto the platform in front of the door, made a short turn to the west, and when he stepped off the platform in front of the door bumped his toe against the covering and fell, injuring himself severely. The covering was in good repair.” This suit is based upon the theory that the covering maintained, as above stated, was dangerous, and that it was negligence on the part of the defendant to maintain the same. This covering was placed over the cellar window only during the winter months, and was removed in the spring of each year, and not replaced until the following winter. This custom had continued for over 35 years. The evidence shows that previous to the leasing of said premises this defendant and her husband had occupied the same, and during the time of their occupancy they had each winter placed this covering over the cellar window.

[1][2][3] 1. It is the first contention of the appellant that there was a failure of proof of negligence of the defendant, and that a verdict should have been directed on that ground. Assuming, first, that the defendant was instrumental in placing...