Schmitt v. Dubuque Cnty.
| Decision Date | 19 November 1907 |
| Citation | 113 N.W. 820,136 Iowa 401 |
| Parties | SCHMITT v. DUBUQUE COUNTY. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Delaware County; F. C. Platt, Judge.
Suit for damages occasioned by a defective bridge. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals. Reversed.Kenline & Roedell and Dunham, Norris & Stiles, for appellant.
Nelson, Duffy & Denison and G. A. Barnes, for appellee.
The petition alleged negligence on the part of the defendant in allowing a county bridge to become and remain out of repair, “in that several planks in, on, and along the traveled way thereof were decayed and broken, leaving large gaps and holes therein; in allowing rock and other obstructions to be placed and remain in the place where such defects were, which conditions were of such a nature as to frighten ordinary gentle horses; in allowing the elevated approach forming part of such bridge to be so constructed as to be without barriers, railing, or other safety devices; in permitting the bridge in such condition to remain open for travel; and in failing to inspect, and provide for the inspection of, said bridge.” The plaintiff further alleged that, while she was in a buggy driving a gentle horse upon and along said approach and bridge, it became frightened at such defective condition and ran away, thereby upsetting the buggy and causing the injury complained of.
There was evidence tending to support these allegations of the petition. The plaintiff took the depositions of many farmers who traveled with horses over the bridge during the spring and summer preceding the accident and while it was in practically the same condition. Several of these witnesses testified that gentle horses “were greatly frightened and shied at the holes and the worn and rotten condition of the plank in the bridge, that the horses were looking at the holes at the time, that there was nothing else at or near the bridge to frighten the horses except the holes, and that they knew the holes caused the horses to become so frightened.” Some of such testimony was elicited on the defendant's cross-examination of the witnesses. After these depositions had been read to the jury, the defendant for the first time objected to the testimony as to what made the horses shy upon this bridge, because it was incompetent, calling for the opinions of witnesses on questions of fact for the jury alone. The testimony was then stricken out. There was error in the ruling. Such testimony is competent under the holding in our own cases and in cases arising in other jurisdictions....
To continue reading
Request your trial