Eickelberg v. City of Waterloo
| Decision Date | 13 May 1924 |
| Docket Number | 35351 |
| Citation | 198 N.W. 638,197 Iowa 1219 |
| Parties | EMMA EICKELBERG, Appellant, v. CITY OF WATERLOO, Appellee |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Black Hawk District Court.--E. B. STILES, Judge.
ACTION to recover damages for injuries received by a fall upon one of defendant's sidewalks. At the close of plaintiff's evidence, there was a directed verdict for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
McCoy & Beecher, for appellant.
Harry M. Reed and Pickett, Swisher & Farwell, for appellee.
I.
The following statement may be made, disclosing the situation and facts in this case: In 1920, there was erected on a certain block in the city of Waterloo the East High School building. The ground, as improved, on the erection of the buildings, is somewhat higher than the surrounding streets. Vine Street runs east and west on the south side of the schoolhouse block. There is a cement sidewalk on the south side of the schoolhouse block. On the north side of said sidewalk extending along the sough border of the schoolhouse grounds, is a retaining wall, about two feet high. The top of said retaining wall is seven or eight inches higher than the surface of the ground inside of the school ground. East of the school building, a cement driveway ten feet wide enters from Vine Street, extending north into the school ground, with a gradual upgrade from the street. In the first 37 1/2 feet from the street, the driveway reaches an elevation of 3.14 inches. In the next 16 feet, it rises 1.27 inches; and in the next 36 feet, it rises 1.45 inches,--making a total elevation, at the end of 87 1/2 feet, of 5.86 inches above the street. The sidewalk along Vine Street south of the schoolhouse block is eight feet wide, and slopes from the east to the west. Across the 10-foot driveway, the fall is one tenth of a foot. The sidewalks across the driveway also dip slightly toward the street: on the east side of the driveway .14 of an inch in the eight feet, and on the west side .17 of an inch. It is conceded that the sidewalk in question was constructed by the city of Waterloo, under plans and specifications prepared by the city engineer, who was a competent civil engineer. Excavation was made for laying the driveway so that it would have a gradual and practically uniform grade from the street into the school grounds. A considerable area of the eastern portion of the school ground slopes toward the driveway, and rain falling thereon and snow and ice melting thereon go into the driveway and flow down across the sidewalk to the street. Also, precipitation on the roof of a part of the school building, 11 by 40 feet, finds its way into the driveway.
Between 12 and 1 o'clock in the daytime on February 6, 1921, appellant, while walking west on the sidewalk, fell, at the intersection of the walk and driveway, near the west edge of the driveway, and received the injury for which she seeks to recover in this case. At the close of plaintiff's testimony, on motion of appellee, the court directed a verdict. Appellant's claim is that there was ice, a piece about two feet wide, across the sidewalk, on which she slipped and fell, causing her injury.
II. The question presented is whether the evidence offered by appellant, giving to it the probative effect which must be accorded on motion to direct an adverse verdict, was sufficient to make out a case to go to the jury. To reverse the case, it must appear that there was sufficient evidence to prove both the negligence of the city and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries sustained by plaintiff.
The evidence shows that there was a piece of smooth ice on the sidewalk where appellant fell. Appellee contends that the evidence does not show that she slipped on the ice. We will consider the case on that point later, if necessary. The ice on the sidewalk was formed of water from the school ground which flowed down the driveway onto the sidewalk and froze. Counsel for appellant strenuously argues that the water flowing off the school ground was artificially upon the sidewalk, and that ice formed from that water was artificial ice; and that, because water had flowed off the school premises down the driveway for a long time before the accident, the city thereby would have constructive notice of any ice that formed at this particular spot, regardless of when the particular ice complained of was formed, with reference to the time of the accident. Stating his position, counsel for appellant tersely says:
"It was and is the contention of the plaintiff that the accumulation of ice at the point where plaintiff was injured was due to artificial and unnatural causes, of which the city had notice, and that the defendant was negligent in the following particulars," in substance: (1) In constructing and maintaining said sidewalk with a sloping surface; (2) in permitting the school district to erect the driveway in such a manner as to discharge the water from the school premises down the driveway onto the sidewalk; (3) in not...
To continue reading
Request your trial