Edwards v. Hasel

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

138 N.W. 501

157 Iowa 416

WILLIAM EDWARDS, Appellee, v. ANNA M. HASEL, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

November 20, 1912

Appeal from Scott District Court.--HON. 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, for appellant.

Cook & Balluff, for appellee.

OPINION

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 eighteen inches out from the building, and is about two and one-half feet wide, running along the side 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 thirty-five years, has had a wooden covering. This wooden covering is two inches thick, and consequently stands two 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 thirty-five 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.

I. 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 the obstruction complained of, did it render the sidewalk...