Royer v. King's Crown Plaster Co.
| Decision Date | 03 May 1910 |
| Citation | 126 N.W. 168,147 Iowa 277 |
| Parties | ROYER v. KING'S CROWN PLASTER CO. ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
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.Dawley & Wheeler, for appellants.
Barnes & Chamberlain, for appellee.
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 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 this question, you should take into account the character of the work to be done, and, if from that and all the circumstances shown in the evidence you believe that the defendant exercised such care as a person of ordinary care and prudence would have exercised under like or similar circumstances, then upon this charge of negligence your finding should be for the defendant.
Instruction No. 5. The next charge of negligence as made by the plaintiff is that the defendant was negligent in failing to employ skilled workmen in the building of the scaffold. If you believe from the evidence that the defendant did not fail to employ skilled workmen in the building of the scaffold, then you will pursue this inquiry no further, but will find for the defendant upon this charge of negligence. If, on the other hand, you find from the evidence that such charge of negligence is sustained by the greater weight or value of the evidence, then you are to determine whether or not this was negligence upon the part of the defendant. And in so determining you should consider the character of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial