Royer v. King's Crown Plaster Co.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtEVANS
Citation126 N.W. 168,147 Iowa 277
PartiesROYER v. KING'S CROWN PLASTER CO. ET AL.
Decision Date03 May 1910

147 Iowa 277
126 N.W. 168

ROYER
v.
KING'S CROWN PLASTER CO.
ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 3, 1910.


Appeal from the Superior Court, Cedar Rapids; James H. Rothrock, Judge.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries. There was a verdict for the defendants. Upon motion of the plaintiff, the trial court awarded a new trial. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.

[126 N.W. 168]

Dawley & Wheeler, for appellants.

Barnes & Chamberlain, for appellee.


EVANS, J.

The defendant is a corporation and the plaintiff was one of its employés. On March 18, 1907, the plaintiff was injured to some extent by the fall of a low scaffold. The jury rendered a verdict for the defendant. Upon motion of the plaintiff, the trial court awarded him a new trial. From such order awarding a new trial the defendant has appealed. The contention of the defendant in argument is that there was no error in the record prejudicial to the plaintiff, and therefore he was not entitled to a new trial. Defendant further

[126 N.W. 169]

contends that upon the whole record the defendant was entitled to a directed verdict. If both of these contentions of the defendant were conceded, it would not necessarily entitle it to a reversal of the order of the trial court. If the trial court had refused a new trial and the plaintiff was here as appellant, then the contention of the defendant would be quite conclusive if supported by the record. But some latitude of discretion is conferred upon the trial court in the matter of granting a new trial, and we cannot interfere with it unless an abuse of discretion be shown. This court has often admonished the trial court of its duty to exercise such discretion candidly and fearlessly, and it has always been reluctant to interfere with an order granting a new trial. Kern v. May, 92 Iowa, 674, 61 N. W. 390;Dewey v. Railroad Co., 31 Iowa, 373.

1. Plaintiff's motion for new trial contained 37 grounds. The trial court sustained it without indicating the ground or grounds of such sustaining order further than to find that the verdict was not contrary to the evidence. It is contended for the defendant that there was no error in any ruling on the admission of testimony, and that there no error in any instruction. It is sufficient answer to this to call attention to instructions Nos. 4 and 5, which are as follows:

“If you find from the evidence that defendant did not exercise ordinary care to cause the scaffold to be supported, so that it would be reasonably safe for the purposes for which it was intended, then you are to determine from the evidence whether or not the defendant was negligent in failing so to do. And, in determining...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • Ford v. Dilley, No. 30938.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 18, 1916
    ...Voorhees' Case, 108 Iowa, 85, 78 N. W. 795, followed in Kelso's Case, 110 Iowa, 565, 81 N. W. 805, and Royer's Case, 147 Iowa, 277, 281, 126 N. W. 168. And the principle is clearly asserted in Campbell v. Park, 128 Iowa, 181, 101 N. W. 861, 104 N. W. 799, which holds that, in reviewing the ......
  • McCollough v. Lee (In re Hollis' Estate), No. 46594.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 12, 1944
    ...166 Iowa 119, 121, 147 N.W. 203;Crider v. McColley, 154 Iowa 671, 672, 135 N.W. 364; [16 N.W.2d 603]Royer v. King's Crown Plaster Co., 147 Iowa 277, 278, 126 N.W. 168;Benefiel v. Semper, 185 Iowa 410-412, 170 N.W. 737;Tathwell v. Cedar Rapids, 122 Iowa 50, 51, 52, 58, 97 N.W. 96. This court......
  • Taylor v. Indep. Sch. Dist. of Earlham, No. 31854.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • October 29, 1917
    ...See Voorhees v. Arnold, 108 Iowa, 85, 78 N. W. 795;Kelse v. Wright, 110 Iowa, 565, 81 N. W. 805;Royer v. Plaster Co., 147 Iowa, 281, 126 N. W. 168;Ford v. Dilley, 174 Iowa, 243, 156 N. W. 516;Eisentrager v. Ry., 160 N. W. 314, L. R. A. 1917B, 1245;Beardstown v. Virginia, 81 Ill. 547. [9] Th......
  • Sorenson v. Counsell (In re Goretska's Estate), No. 46322.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 7, 1944
    ...do more than cite some of the cases in support thereof; Dewey v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 31 Iowa 373; Royer v. King's Crown Plaster Co., 147 Iowa 277, 126 N.W. 168;Holland v. Kelly, 149 Iowa 391, 128 N.W. 338. “Our reading of the record convinces us that the trial court did not abuse its di......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • Ford v. Dilley, No. 30938.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 18, 1916
    ...Voorhees' Case, 108 Iowa, 85, 78 N. W. 795, followed in Kelso's Case, 110 Iowa, 565, 81 N. W. 805, and Royer's Case, 147 Iowa, 277, 281, 126 N. W. 168. And the principle is clearly asserted in Campbell v. Park, 128 Iowa, 181, 101 N. W. 861, 104 N. W. 799, which holds that, in reviewing the ......
  • McCollough v. Lee (In re Hollis' Estate), No. 46594.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 12, 1944
    ...166 Iowa 119, 121, 147 N.W. 203;Crider v. McColley, 154 Iowa 671, 672, 135 N.W. 364; [16 N.W.2d 603]Royer v. King's Crown Plaster Co., 147 Iowa 277, 278, 126 N.W. 168;Benefiel v. Semper, 185 Iowa 410-412, 170 N.W. 737;Tathwell v. Cedar Rapids, 122 Iowa 50, 51, 52, 58, 97 N.W. 96. This court......
  • Taylor v. Indep. Sch. Dist. of Earlham, No. 31854.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • October 29, 1917
    ...See Voorhees v. Arnold, 108 Iowa, 85, 78 N. W. 795;Kelse v. Wright, 110 Iowa, 565, 81 N. W. 805;Royer v. Plaster Co., 147 Iowa, 281, 126 N. W. 168;Ford v. Dilley, 174 Iowa, 243, 156 N. W. 516;Eisentrager v. Ry., 160 N. W. 314, L. R. A. 1917B, 1245;Beardstown v. Virginia, 81 Ill. 547. [9] Th......
  • Sorenson v. Counsell (In re Goretska's Estate), No. 46322.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 7, 1944
    ...do more than cite some of the cases in support thereof; Dewey v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 31 Iowa 373; Royer v. King's Crown Plaster Co., 147 Iowa 277, 126 N.W. 168;Holland v. Kelly, 149 Iowa 391, 128 N.W. 338. “Our reading of the record convinces us that the trial court did not abuse its di......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT