Hunter v. Ricke Bros.
| Decision Date | 11 March 1905 |
| Citation | 102 N.W. 826,127 Iowa 108 |
| Parties | J. W. HUNTER, Appellant, v. RICKE BROTHERS, ET AL., Appellees |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Webster District Court.--HON. W. D. EVANS, Judge.
ACTION to recover the value of a team of horses destroyed by fire while in the possession of defendants as bailees for hire. At the close of all the evidence there was an instructed verdict in favor of defendants, and a judgment against plaintiff for costs. Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Mitchell & Hackler, for appellant.
Healy Bros. & Kelleher, for appellees.
At the time of the occurrence in question defendants were engaged in the conduct of a livery and feed barn for hire. Plaintiff gave his team of horses into the custody of defendants to be cared for overnight in said barn, and during the night the same were destroyed by a fire which consumed the barn and its contents.
I. Plaintiff bases his action wholly upon the theory that the destruction of his property was the result of negligence on the part of defendants, the allegation of the petition being that defendants failed to exercise ordinary care to protect the property from danger by fire. Upon the trial plaintiff sought to show that in consenting to leave his team in the barn he placed reliance on a statement made to him by one of the defendants to the effect that such defendant was to remain in attendance upon the barn all night. The questions asked were leading in form, and objections made on the ground were sustained. Counsel for appellant, however, contends for error in that "the information desired was of such character that it could not be elicited in any other way except by leading questions." We are not disposed to this view, but we need not enter upon any discussion of the question, as, in any event, the rulings involved no prejudice. Under the issue the sole question in the case was whether defendants were negligent in respect of their care of the property intrusted to them. Evidence that plaintiff relied upon a statement in effect as contended for could have no bearing upon the issue as thus made.
Appellant also complains of error in that a question asked of the defendant as a witness, having relation to the entrances to the barn, and how they were fastened on the night in question, was ruled out. As we find that the existing conditions were subsequently brought fully to the attention of the jury, the complaint is without merit.
II. The ruling upon the motion to direct a verdict is complained of as error. It will be noticed that the motion was made at the close of all the evidence in the case. Such motion was predicated upon the theory that the burden of proof was with plaintiff to establish the negligence alleged in the petition, and that there has been a failure to make such proof. The record shows that plaintiff rested his case solely upon proof of the bailment, that the property had been destroyed by fire, and a consequent failure on the part of defendants to make return of the property in response to his demand. Defendants on their part introduced evidence to the effect that the fire occurred during the night, and from some unknown cause. Fairly stated, it is the contention of appellant that, having made proof of the fact of bailment and of the failure to return, there arose a presumption of negligence as matter of law; that in such situation the burden was cast upon defendants to show ordinary care and diligence on their part to protect and preserve the property and that, having failed in this, as disclosed by the record, they cannot be heard to deny liability. Counsel for appellees, on the other hand, contend that the presumption of negligence, admitting that such arose as contended for, was overcome by proof of the fact that the fire occurred through some unknown cause, and hence was either accidental or incendiary in character. As the bailment was for...
To continue reading
Request your trial