Schlinkert v. Skaalia
| Decision Date | 05 April 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 37815.,37815. |
| Citation | 203 Iowa 672,213 N.W. 219 |
| Parties | SCHLINKERT v. SKAALIA. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Winneshiek County; H. E. Taylor, Judge.
Action for damages for personal injuries resulting from an automobile accident. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.E. R. Acres, of Decorah, and T. H. Goheen. of Calmar, for appellant.
Willett & Nelson, of Decorah, for appellee.
The plaintiff, riding as a guest of Nygaard in Nygaard's automobile, was, on June 28, 1925, severely injured as a result of an accident to such car. This action was predicated on the theory that the defendant was responsible for the accident in question. The defendant was driving that Sunday morning eastward on a primary road. Going in the same direction upon the same road and behind the defendant was Nygaard, driving his Chevrolet car, weighing 1,800 pounds, occupied by himself and the plaintiff, Schlinkert. Nygaard was driving much faster than the defendant, and was overtaking him. Ahead of them was an intersecting road extending north and south, on which the defendant intended to turn to the north. He slowed down for that purpose as he came to the intersection. Nygaard passed him at the nearest edge of the intersection without warning, and while the defendant was turning to the left. There was a contact of the front end of the defendant's car with the rear end of Nygaard's car. Across the intersecting road, and along the north side of the primary road, and parallel therewith, was a culvert 25 feet long with a ditch at each end thereof. Nygaard's car came in contact with said culvert, and turned turtle, finally landing in the ditch 20 feet east of the intersection, and facing southward. The defendant's car, a one-seated Buick roadster, was a considerable distance therefrom, and had suffered no damage. The foregoing facts are not wholly undisputed, but are such as the jury could have found upon the evidence.
The complaint, which the appellant presses upon our attention, is directed to certain interrogatories, which the court submitted to the jury. These were as follows:
“(1) Did H. O. Nygaard, the owner and driver of the car in which plaintiff was riding, before attempting to pass defendant's car, blow his horn so as to give notice to defendant of his intention to pass defendant?
(2) Did H. O. Nygaard, the owner and driver of the car in which the plaintiff was riding, when he approached the intersection of the public highway in question, reduce the speed of his car to a reasonable and proper rate?
(3) Did H. O. Nygaard, the owner and driver of the car in which plaintiff was riding at the time of the accident in question, drive his car in a careful and prudent manner and at a rate of speed which did not endanger the property of another or the life or limb of any person?”
Each of the foregoing was answered in the negative.
The general complaint made against these interrogatories is that they tended to submit the case to the jury upon false issues. It appears that the plaintiff was a mere guest of Nygaard, and was in no manner responsible for Nygaard's negligence, if any. It is argued, therefore, that the question of Nygaard's negligence ought not to have been submitted to the jury by interrogatory, and that the submission of the same tended to impress the jury that the negligence of Nygaard was a good defense to the plaintiff's cause of action. This very point was guarded by the trial court by the following instruction 6, of which no complaint was made:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial