McClain v. Inc. Town of Garden Grove

• Decision Date: 02 June 1891
• Citation: 48 N.W. 1031,83 Iowa 235
• Parties: MCCLAIN v. INCORPORATED TOWN OF GARDEN GROVE.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

83 Iowa 235

48 N.W. 1031

MCCLAIN

v.INCORPORATED TOWN OF GARDEN GROVE.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 2, 1891.

Appeal from district court, Decatur county; R. C. HENRY, Judge.

Action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the wrong of defendant. There was a judgment in favor of defendant. The plaintiff appeals.E. W. Curry and S. A. Gates, for appellant.

S. H. Amos and R. L. Parrish, for appellee.

ROBINSON, J.

In January, 1888, defendant controlled and was responsible for the condition of a certain bridge over a railway within its territorial limits. The bridge was 12 feet wide, provided with side railings, and reached by means of steep approaches. In the month named one Ira Miller invited plaintiff and another lady to take a sleigh-ride for pleasure. The invitation was accepted, and the party started in a cutter drawn by one horse. In the course of the ride they attempted to cross the bridge described. The horse drew the cutter with its load up the steep approach, and onto the bridge. When a part of the way over, the horse suddenly fell against the railing on one side of the bridge, broke it down, and dropped off, drawing with him the cutter and its lady occupants. Plaintiff fell to the ground below and received the injuries for which she seeks to recover in this action. She claims that the defendant was negligent in maintaining a bridge of insufficient width, in not providing it with sufficient railings, and in permitting it to be used without sufficient railings. Defendant avers that the accident occurred without fault on its part, in consequence of the carelessness of plaintiff and the negligence of Miller, and insists that the alleged defects in the bridge were not the proximate cause of the injuries received by plaintiff. After the evidence had been submitted on the part of both parties the court sustained a motion of defendant to direct the jury to return a verdict in its favor. A verdict was returned in favor of defendant by direction of the court, and judgment was rendered thereon. The first ground alleged in the motion for a verdict was that the evidence showed that the defects alleged in the bridge were not the proximate cause of the injury. It appears without contradiction that there was snow about half way up the approach to the bridge, and none on the bridge. The horse pulled steadily and without apparent difficulty in going onto the bridge, fell without warning of any kind, and appears to have been dead when he fell. Miller, who owned the horse, is of the opinion that its death was caused by heart disease, although it may have been choked by the breast harness in which it was pulling at the time. To entitle plaintiff to recover it must be shown that the injuries of which she complains were the natural and proximate result of the alleged defects in the bridge. West v. Ward, 77 Iowa, 324, 42 N. W. Rep. 309, and cases therein cited. Under the evidence submitted we do not think that is...