Riley v. Town of Iowa Falls

• Decision Date: 23 October 1891
• Citation: Riley v. Town of Iowa Falls, 83 Iowa 761, 50 N.W. 33 (Iowa 1891)
• Parties: RILEY v. TOWN OF IOWA FALLS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

83 Iowa 761

50 N.W. 33

RILEY

v.TOWN OF IOWA FALLS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 23, 1891.

Appeal from district court, Hardin county; J. L. STEVENS, Judge.

Action to recover for personal injuries incurred from a fall caused by a defective sidewalk. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.C. E. Albrook, for appellant.

J. H. Scales, for appellee.

BECK, C. J.

The objections to the judgment will be considered in the order of their discussion in the printed argument of defendant's counsel.

1. It is insisted that the evidence does not sufficiently establish the existence of a defect in the sidewalk, which is the ground of plaintiff's claim, and that defendant was chargeable with notice of such defect. The sufficiency of the evidence is discussed in two or three divisions of the argument. In our opinion, counsel's position, which is argued at considerable length, is not sustained by the abstract. It is clearly shown that the sidewalk, which was of plank, was decayed and out of repair. The accident resulted from a plank, when stepped upon by one walking with the plaintiff, flying up and tripping him. It is insisted that this identical plank was not shown to have been loose before the accident. This may be admitted. But it was shown that the planks along the place of that accident were loose and decayed; that the plank causing the injury was old and decayed; and the stringers upon which it was laid were not in good order. The nails in it did not keep it in place. The walk had been in the condition indicated by the fact that the planks were partly loose or decayed for several months, and a member of the city council had been informed of the insufficient condition of the sidewalk about the place of the accident. We think the evidence authorized the jury to find that the sidewalk was defective, of which the defendant had notice. At least, it cannot be said that the verdict is so without the support of evidence as to authorize the conclusion that it is the result of passion or prejudice, and not the exercise of the intelligent and honest discretion of the jury.

2. Counsel seems to question the claim of plaintiff made as to his injuries. They were about the face, and, while not permanent, were severe.

3. Counsel complain of the rulings upon the admission of evidence as to the defective sidewalk, repairs thereon, and the like. We discover no error in these rulings, and think the objections demand no further attention.

4....