Robinson v. City of Cedar Rapids

• Decision Date: 25 January 1897
• Citation: 100 Iowa 662,69 N.W. 1064
• Parties: ROBINSON v. CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

100 Iowa 662

69 N.W. 1064

ROBINSON

v.CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 25, 1897.

Appeal from district court, Linn county; William P. Wolf, Judge.

On the evening of March 10, 1894, in passing along the east side of Third street east in Cedar Rapids, at its intersection with the alley between First and Second avenues, the plaintiff fell, and was injured. From the street walk, which was high above grade, to the paving in the alley, there was a slanting apron, with cleats, the upper end being about six inches below the walk. The cleats were old and worn, and partly removed, and apron made slippery by the accumulation of snow and ice. The plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of the city in so maintaining its streets, and recovered judgment. The defendant appeals. Affirmed.Warren Harman and J. J. Powell, for appellant.

Rickel & Crocker, for appellee.

LADD, J.

The defendant insists that the evidence conclusively shows plaintiff to have been guilty of contributory negligence, and that for this reason the case ought not to have been submitted to the jury. There were but two witnesses to the occurrence, and they agree that the night was cold, dark, and windy, and that there was some snow or frost in the air. The grocery store out of which plaintiff and Grimmell came was next to the alley. The walk in front of the store was lighted from within, but the alley was so dark that neither could see. The plaintiff had lived in Cedar Rapids eight years, and during that time had worked a block and a half distant, but he testifies that he did not remember ever having passed over this particular crossing before, and did not know its condition. He knew the walk was high above the grade. Grimmell was lame, and familiar with the place, and when he crossed it found it necessary to get down and feel his way. He could see the end of the sidewalk, but not into the alley. The plaintiff had the right to rely upon the alley crossing being in a reasonably safe condition unless he knew otherwise. He was not bound to anticipate a drop at the end of the sidewalk of six inches, and from there on a slanting apron in such a condition on one of the principal streets of the city. He was simply required to exercise that degree of care and caution a prudent person would ordinarily in passing along the streets of the city, and we think the question as to whether he so did was fairly and properly submitted to the jury.

2. Mrs. Truesdale, witness for plaintiff, after testifying to the condition of the alley crossing, was asked what especially called her attention to the place, and, over the objection of the defendant, answered, “I fell.” Thereafter she detailed the particulars of the occurrence, without...