McAdams v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.

• Decision Date: 20 October 1925
• Docket Number: 36819
• Citation: 205 N.W. 310,200 Iowa 732
• Parties: W. M. MCADAMS, Appellee, v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

205 N.W. 310

200 Iowa 732

W. M. MCADAMS, Appellee, v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant

No. 36819

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

October 20, 1925

Appeal from Mahaska District Court.--D. W. HAMILTON, Judge.

ACTION against the defendant railroad company for damages to plaintiff's crop, occasioned by the overflow of water on his land. The jury returned a verdict for $ 2,999.99, which was afterwards reduced to $ 1,500. Defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Devitt & Eichhorn, J. G. Gamble, and A. B. Howland, for appellant.

McCoy & McCoy, for appellee.

ALBERT J. FAVILLE, C. J., and EVANS and MORLING, JJ., concur.

OPINION

ALBERT, J.

A case similar to the one under consideration, involving almost identical facts between the same parties, was before this court under opinion reported in 200 Iowa 204, the title being McAdams v. Davis. In that case damages were recovered for flooding the plaintiff's land in 1919 while the present action is for alleged damage to crops during the years 1920 and 1921.

The plaintiff is the owner of 80 acres of land. He rented 25 acres on the east thereof. His farm is bounded on the south by the defendant railroad, and on the east by the Northwestern Railroad.

The defendant company maintains a steel bridge and trestle, approximately 466 feet long, in its line on the south of plaintiff's land. There were some washouts, and, to protect its bridge and trestle, the defendant placed, at one end of the trestle and around the abutments to the bridge, quantities of stone. The plaintiff's claim is that the negligence of the company consisted of filling in the stone around the abutments and trestle.

The North Skunk River crosses plaintiff's land in a southerly direction, and passes under the bridge. In June, 1920, plaintiff's land was flooded when his corn crop was about four inches high. In May, 1921, his land was flooded, but he had not put in his corn crop at that time. About the first of October, 1921, his land was again flooded, when he claims that his crop was practically matured, and this last flood destroyed his crop. This is a sufficient statement of facts material to the questions considered.

In the trial of the case, the plaintiff offered the testimony of various witnesses as to their opinion of what the fair and reasonable value of the corn, as it stood in the field, was in 1920, immediately preceding the high water, and what its worth was immediately following the flood in 1920. The same evidence was offered as to the damage done by the flood in October, 1921. To both of these questions objection was made on the ground that they did not call for the proper measure of damages. Plaintiff offered numerous witnesses on this proposition, and they were all permitted to testify as to their opinion of the difference in the value of the crop before and after the flood as to both years.

As heretofore noted, the only negligence charged against the railroad company was the placing of the stone about the abutments to the bridge and trestle. The court gave Instruction 11, which reads:

"It is established beyond controversy that the Skunk River would have overflowed the lands of the plaintiff in the years 1920 and 1921 at the times the plaintiff claims his crops were damaged, and would have done damage to plaintiff's crops regardless of the presence of rock about the bridge and trestle. And for such damage the defendant is not liable. You will only consider such additional damage, if any,...