Harrison v. Town of Ayrshire
| Decision Date | 11 April 1904 |
| Citation | 99 N.W. 132,123 Iowa 528 |
| Parties | BLANCHE HARRISON, Appellee, v. THE INCORPORATED TOWN OF AYRSHIRE, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Palo Alto District Court.--HON. A. D. BAILIE, Judge.
ACTION at law to recover damages for personal injuries received by plaintiff while passing along and over a sidewalk in the defendant town. Defendant's answer was a general denial and a plea of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The case was tried to a jury resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
E. A Morling for appellant.
Kelley & Kelley and Carr, Hewitt, Parker & Wright for appellee.
The petition alleges that plaintiff was injured while walking on a sidewalk in defendant town, upon one of the public streets thereof, in front of the property of one Dr. Craig; the name of said street being to plaintiff unknown. The grounds of negligence charged were as follows: "That said sidewalk where the injury occurred was defective, the boards thereof being rotten, splintered, or broken so that the same either gave way under the plaintiff, or had already been splintered and broken, and a hole located therein, at the time the injury occurred to the plaintiff in said walk; that said injury occurred without the fault or negligence of the plaintiff, and the sidewalk at said place was in said defective condition at the point where said injury occurred and was and had been defective and unsafe for a long time prior to the injury to plaintiff; that defendant had notice of the said defective and unsafe condition of said sidewalk prior to said injury, and had failed and neglected to repair said defective sidewalk, and negligently permitted the same to stay in such condition, which was defective and unsafe and said walk was in said defective and unsafe condition at the time of the aforesaid injury to this plaintiff, and, by reason of said acts and conduct of the defendant and its officers in permitting said sidewalk to become in such defective and dangerous condition, and to so remain, they were and are guilty of negligence." Plaintiff's testimony as to how she received her fall was as follows:
The first point made by appellant is that the court erred in assuming in its instructions to the jury that the walk was upon a public street, and in not submitting to the jury the question as to defendant's jurisdiction over the walk at the place where the injury occurred. There was no conflict in the testimony with reference to this issue. The sidewalk was not laid upon ground which had been formerly dedicated to the public. It was in fact, as disclosed by the records, a town lot, but had been used by the public as a street for at least five years. It ran north and south, and was used by pedestrians as a means whereby to get from one east and west street to another--to reach the public school building and residences abutting on said lot. The ground itself was never lawfully dedicated to public use, nor was there such use thereof as to make it a public street. But this does not in itself solve the problem. The place was left open and was traveled as a public street for at least five years prior to the time plaintiff received her injuries. The sidewalk was built pursuant to the direction of the town officials, they inspected it from time to time, and it was so constructed with reference to other lots as to indicate that it was a walk for public travel. It was used for that purpose for years, and there was no error in assuming that the town had taken jurisdiction of the walk, and was liable for any negligence that might be shown with reference thereto. Kircher v. Larchwood, 120 Iowa 578, 95 N.W. 184; Shannon v. Tama City, 74 Iowa 22, 36 N.W. 776.
II. Two of defendant's witnesses, who had testified in chief that they had examined the walk both...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Skinner v. Cron
...not think they were allowed to give affidavits, but if they were called into court they would tell the facts.” In Harrison v. Town of Ayrshire, 123 Iowa, 528, 99 N. W. 132, a juror was called by the defendant in support of its motion for a new trial. Said juror was asked a preliminary quest......
-
Dunn v. City of Oelwein
... ... use by the public--that is, open and used for travel? ... Harrison v. Town of Ayrshire, 123 Iowa 528, 99 N.W ... 132; Kircher v. Town of Larchwood, 120 Iowa 578, 95 ... ...
-
Dunn v. City of Oelwein
...for public travel along a street or thoroughfare, in general use by the public--that is, open and used for travel? Harrison v. Town of Ayrshire, 123 Iowa, 528, 99 N. W. 132;Kircher v. Town of Larchwood, 120 Iowa, 578, 95 N. W. 184;Brown v. Town of Chillicothe, 122 Iowa, 640, 98 N. W. 502. C......
-
Thompson v. City of Sigourney, 40752.
...a crosswalk, is a sidewalk. In either event, it was defendant's duty to use reasonable care to keep it in repair. See Harrison v. Ayrshire, 123 Iowa, 528, 99 N. W. 132;Dunn v. Oelwein, 140 Iowa, 423, 118 N. W. 764;Kircher v. Larchwood, 120 Iowa, 578, 95 N. W. 184. Along the east side of Jef......