Goodson v. City of Des Moines
| Decision Date | 03 June 1885 |
| Citation | 23 N.W. 655,66 Iowa 255 |
| Parties | GOODSON v. THE CITY OF DES MOINES |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Warren Circuit Court.
ACTION to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff's wife, by reason of a fall caused by a defective sidewalk. There was a judgment upon a verdict for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
REVERSED.
Williamson & Kavanaugh, for appellant.
Bryan & Bryan, for appellee.
I. Plaintiff was permitted, against defendant's objection to prove that before the accident the sidewalk upon which plaintiff's wife fell was not in good repair at places other than at the place of the accident. This evidence, the jury were informed by an instruction, was admitted as tending to show that the condition of the walk was such as should have attracted the attention of the city officers, and, as we understand it, the court held that this evidence was pertinent to prove that the city officers had, or in the exercise of proper care ought to have had, notice of the defects. The evidence was incompetent, and the instruction is erroneous. The city cannot be charged with notice of a defect in a sidewalk by evidence that there were other defects in other parts of the sidewalk at a prior time. Ruggles v Town of Nevada, 63 Iowa 185, 18 N.W. 866.
II. Evidence was also introduced, against defendant's objection, showing that after the accident loose boards were seen upon other parts of the sidewalk. This evidence is doubly objectionable, in that it not only shows defects other than the one causing the injury to plaintiff's wife, but these defects were two weeks after the accident. Surely defendant is not liable to plaintiff by reason of negligence occurring after the injury.
III. Upon the argument of the case, defendant's counsel proposed to read two or three questions, and the answers thereto made by a witness for plaintiff. To the reading counsel for defendant objected, unless all the evidence should be read. The court sustained the objection, and prohibited the counsel from reading a portion of the evidence. This ruling was wrong. Defendant's counsel could have stated the evidence for the purpose of commenting upon it. It would surely be better to permit him to read it as in that case there could have been no dispute or question as to the accuracy of the statement of the evidence thus presented. Defendants could have suffered no prejudice by the reading of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial