Peterschmidt v. Menke
Decision Date | 09 April 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 49377,49377 |
Citation | 89 N.W.2d 152,249 Iowa 859 |
Parties | Frank PETERSCHMIDT, Appellant, v. Carl MENKE and Coletta Menke, Appellees. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Napier & Fehseke, Fort Madison, for appellant.
Pollard, Lawse & Deitchler, Fort Madison, and Wilbur R. Dull, Ottumwa, for appellees.
This is the second appeal in this case. The first decision appears in 246 Iowa 722, 69 N.W.2d 65. It is an intersection collision case. The statement of facts, as to the collision and surrounding circumstances, appears in detail in our former opinion. We will not repeat the full statement. We will only show such of the facts as are pertinent to the new situation which has arisen in connection with this appeal.
At the first trial of the case Menke sued Peterschmidt for damages to his car. Peterschmidt filed counterclaim for damages to his pickup truck, but primarily for serious personal injuries suffered by him in the collision.
When Peterschmidt first filed his counterclaim he alleged in Count I specific charges of negligence against Mrs. Menke, the driver of the car, and Mr. Menke as owner, and alleged freedom from contributory negligence. In Count II he alleged he was entitled to the benefit of doctrine of last clear chance. At the close of all testimony the trial court withdrew Count I from the jury, but submitted the case under the allegations of Count II. The jury found in favor of Peterschmidt and Mr. and Mrs. Menke appealed. We reversed.
Before the second trial either Peterschmidt or his insurance company settled with Menke for the damages to his car. It was then agreed that the case should be tried the second time on the theory of Peterschmidt as plaintiff and Mr. and Mrs. Menke as defendants. Substantially the same evidence was offered in the second trial as in the first under the allegations of Count I of the petition as to specific negligence and freedom from contributory negligence. The doctrine of last clear chance did not enter into the second trial, in view of our previous decision. At the close of all testimony the court directed a verdict for defendants. Plaintiff has appealed.
Appellant alleges three assignments of error. 1. The trial court should have submitted to the jury the question of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff. 2. The trial court should have submitted to the jury the question as to whether or not Mrs. Menke was guilty of negligence. 3. The trial court erred in excluding evidence as to damage to defendants' truck, and in refusing to admit a statement given by Mr. Menke as to the insurance company shortly after the collision.
I. To properly consider the ruling of the trial court in directing a verdict for defendants, a statement of part of the evidence offered in the second trial is necessary. Plaintiff was driving west on a gravel road. Defendant, Mrs. Menke, was driving south, also on a gravel road, in a car owned by Carl Menke, her husband.
Plaintiff testified:
Mrs. Menke testified:
We have stated many times, and the rule is too well settled to need either discussion or extensive citations, that the evidence must be given the most favorable interpretation for the plaintiff it will reasonably bear. Odegard v. Gregerson, 234 Iowa 325, 12 N.W.2d 559; Comfort v. Continental Casualty Co., 239 Iowa 1206, 1208, 34 N.W.2d 588, 589; Jacobson v. Aldrich, 246 Iowa 1160, 69 N.W.2d 733, 735.
II. The first basis of the court's ruling in directing a verdict was contributory negligence of plaintiff as a matter of law. It is well settled that plaintiff has the burden of making an affirmative showing of his freedom from contributory negligence. Sanderson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 167 Iowa 90, 149 N.W. 188; In re Estate of Hill, 202 Iowa 1038, 208 N.W. 334, 210 N.W. 241; Nurnburg v. Joyce, 232 Iowa 1244, 7 N.W.2d 786; Jacobson v. Aldrich, supra. In the last cited case this court stated [246 Iowa 1160, 68 N.W.2d 735]: 'There is also the principle, equally well settled in Iowa law, that the burden is upon the plaintiff to make an affirmative showing of his freedom from negligenc which in any way contributed to his damage and injuries.'
The question of contributory negligence is ordinarily for the jury. In the Jacobson case we said: 'Another rule often repeated is that ordinarily the question of contributory negligence is for the jury; it is only in The case at bar falls within the category of a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Olson v. Truax
...of making an affirmative showing of his freedom from negligence which contributed in any way to the collision. Peterschmidt v. Menke, 249 Iowa ----, 89 N.W.2d 152, 154, and citations. It is true of course the evidence may be circumstantial as well as It was plaintiff's duty to exercise reas......
-
Kuehn v. Jenkins
...speed or absence of lights after nightfall of the vehicle on his right. Olson v. Truax, Iowa, 97 N.W.2d 900, 905; Peterschmidt v. Menke, 249 Iowa 859, 864, 89 N.W.2d 152, 156; Jacobson v. Aldrich, 246 Iowa 1160, 1170, 68 N.W.2d 733, 739; Hewitt v. Ogle, 219 Iowa 46, 49, 50, 256 N.W. 755, 75......
-
Hutchinson v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.
...because of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Peterschmidt v. Menke, 249 Iowa 859, 863, 89 N.W.2d 152 and cases cited. The Peterschmidt case along with many others, comes within the excepted class. Our recent decision in Lingle v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 251 Iowa 1183, 104 N.W......
-
Larson v. Johnson
...Olson v. Truax, 250 Iowa 1040, 1047, 97 N.W.2d 900; Jacobson v. Aldrich, 246 Iowa 1160, 1170, 68 N.W.2d 733, 739; Peterschmidt v. Menke, 249 Iowa 859, 865, 89 N.W.2d 152, 156; Davidson v. Vast, 233 Iowa 534, 10 N.W.2d We feel the issue of lack of control was properly submitted to the jury. ......