Ford v. City of Des Moines

• Decision Date: 28 May 1898
• Citation: 106 Iowa 94,75 N.W. 630
• Parties: FORD v. CITY OF DES MOINES.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

106 Iowa 94

75 N.W. 630

FORD

v.CITY OF DES MOINES.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 28, 1898.

Appeal from district court, Polk county; T. F. Stevenson, Judge.

Action at law to recover for personal injuries sustained from a fall on a sidewalk for which the defendant is alleged to have been responsible. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals. Reversed.J. K. Macomber, for appellant.

Balliet & Stahl, for appellee.

ROBINSON, J.

In the year 1895 an officer of the defendant constructed on Fifteenth street, from an alley to Center street, a temporary sidewalk. It was placed in a trench cut for that purpose, was about 40 feet in length and 3 feet in width, and was made by placing together planks lengthwise of the trench. The walk was sloping, the difference in height between the highest and lowest parts of the walk being about 5 feet; but cleats were not fastened on the walk, nor were there hand rails at the sides. While the walk was in that condition, the plaintiff attempted to pass down it, and in so doing slipped and fell, and received the injuries of which she complains. The verdict and judgment were for the sum of $500, exclusive of costs.

1. The defendant objected to the introduction of evidence which showed that the walk was sloping, and now claims that it was erroneously admitted, for the alleged reason that, if the walk was too steep, it was due to a fault in the plans, and to an error in judgment, and not to neglect of duty. A sufficient answer to this claim is that the walk was not constructed according to any plan adopted by the defendant. It was a mere temporary expedient, apparently intended to be used until the street should be brought to the established grade; and, if it was improperly constructed, or lacked appurtenances it should have had to make it reasonably safe for the use for which it was designed, the city was negligent in permitting it to remain in that condition. Clemence v. City of Auburn, 66 N. Y. 334. It was, therefore, proper for the plaintiff to show that the walk was sloping, and also to show that it lacked appurtenances which were required to make it safe. Whether the defendant was negligent in constructing the walk and in permitting it to remain as it was at the time of the accident was a question for the determination of the jury. Baxter v. City of Cedar Rapids (Iowa) 72 N. W. 790, and Graham v. Town of Oxford (decided at the present term of this court) 75 N. W. 473.

2. The district court charged the jury as follows: “If you find that the plaintiff is entitled to recover, the next inquiry will be as to the amount of her recovery. * * * The damages to which she is entitled, if at all, are such as are caused by the bodily pain and suffering, distress and mental anguish and inconvenience, and the impaired enjoyment of life by reason of the injury, and for such pain and inconvenience and impairment of enjoyment for such time as the same has been or may continue, as shown by the evidence, in the future, if any. * * *” This is...