Skalla v. Daeges
| Decision Date | 19 September 1944 |
| Docket Number | 46512. |
| Citation | 15 N.W.2d 638,234 Iowa 1260 |
| Parties | SKALLA v. DAEGES et al. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
G. O. Hurley, of Harlan, and Gordon Diesing, of Omaha, Neb., for appellant.
Bennett Cullison, of Harlan, McGinn & McGinn, of Council Bluffs and Herrick, Sloan & Langdon, of Des Moines, for appellees.
Plaintiff Edwin Skalla, brought suit against Michael Daeges and Matilda Daeges under what is known as the guest statute (sec 5037.10). He claims that while riding in a Buick automobile as a guest on the night of April 12, 1942, Michael Daeges the driver, operated such vehicle in a reckless manner by driving the same into a steel and concrete bridge on the highway just east of Portsmouth, Iowa, inflicting dangerous and serious injuries upon him which injuries were the direct and proximate result of said reckless operation. He claims that the automobile was owned by Matilda Daeges, mother of Michael Daeges, and that the latter was driving the same with her permission and consent.
When plaintiff rested, upon motion of Matilda Daeges, the court directed a verdict in her favor, but overruled a like motion to direct a verdict in favor of Michael Daeges. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, Michael Daeges, for $13,685. The court required the plaintiff to remit all but $10,000 of said verdict, or submit to a new trial. This was done and the court entered judgment against Michael Daeges for $10,000. Both plaintiff and Michael Daeges appealed, the former on account of the action of the court in directing a verdict in favor of Matilda Daeges and the latter on account of the court's failure to sustain a like motion in his favor, and entering judgment against him. Edwin Skalla having first appealed will be referred to herein as the appellant and Michael Daeges will be referred to as the appellee. Matilda Daeges will likewise be referred to as the appellee.
I. In this opinion we will deal with each appeal separately. In so doing there will necessarily be some repetition and restatement, both as to the evidence and authorities cited.
We will first deal with the appeal of Michael Daeges in which he claims that the court erred in refusing to sustain his motion for a directed verdict, and later in committing various errors in the submission of the case to the jury.
Before taking up the appeals, we think that it will be helpful to a better understanding of the matters involved to set out a summary of the evidence.
Much of the evidence is not in dispute--the ownership of the automobile, its driver, Edwin Skalla a guest therein, the trip to and from Portsmouth to Harlan and Avoca, the approximate time of the accident, the location of the highway and the bridge, the collision at the bridge, the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by Edwin Skalla.
We think that there is evidence of the following facts and circumstances:
On the night of April 12, 1942, at the hour of about 1:30 a.m., Edwin Skalla, in company with Michael Daeges and another young man, were riding westward in a Buick automobile owned by Matilda Daeges and then driven with her consent by Michael Daeges. The road on which they were traveling was a 20 foot concrete roadbed with 7 foot dirt shoulders on each side. It was a straight pavement and was smooth and dry. About a fourth of a mile east of Portsmouth this road crosses a stream spanned by a 159 foot steel and concrete bridge with a driveway 20 feet, 4 inches. At the sides of this bridge are curbs and steel rails, the latter on top of the curb. At each end of the bridge there were red glass reflectors fastened to posts. On the north side and at the east end there was a concrete pillar about 3 feet high and a foot square, weighing nearly 400 lbs. It was fastened at the top and middle by two rails which paralleled the roadbed and at the bottom was imbedded in concrete with large iron bolts as reinforcements. Along the line of the rails were angle iron steel uprights about 7 feet apart. The steel rails were of angle iron and were 2X3 inches and 1/4 of an inch thick. The steel uprights were of double angle iron and about the same weight and thickness as the rails. The steel rails were bolted to the uprights. The latter were bolted to the main bridge structure.
Earlier in the evening Michael Daeges, driving the Buick automobile, had come to the Skalla home north of Portsmouth and invited Edwin Skalla to go with him on a trip to Harlan and Avoca. Matilda Daeges was not with him. Michael Daeges lived with his mother about two miles east of Portsmouth and in going from their home to Portsmouth they traveled over the road in question. He had driven over this road for a number of years and had crossed the bridge on many occasions. The young folks went to Harlan, later to Avoca, and were on their way home when the accident took place. Michael was driving and was alone in the front seat. While on the trip before the accident, Edwin Skalla had told Michael that he was driving too fast. The road for at least a quarter of a mile east of the bridge is straight and level. When Michael came to the bridge the car struck the north side tearing the concrete pillar from its base, hurling it ahead and across the stream into the opposite bank about 110 feet from where it had been fastened. The car straddled the curb and steel rails and came to a stop between 20 and 25 feet west of the east end of the bridge. Both of the steel rails went through the radiator, the dashboard, the front seat, and from there one went on through the rear window, the other through the rear seat and the trunk and projected about 10 feet to the rear of the car. Three of the steel uprights were torn from their fastenings and about 30 feet of the rails were damaged. When the car came to a stop its left wheels were on the paving and the right ones had no support. The front end was badly wrecked. The foot feed was clear down to the floor. It required the power of a large truck to pull it from the place where it stopped. Many photographs were taken of the highway, the bridge, and the wrecked car, and most of these were in the record.
When the car struck the bridge appellant, Edwin Skalla, was asleep in the back seat. He was knocked unconscious and remained in that condition for six days. He suffered a skull fracture, a rupture of an ear drum, a fracture of a vertebrae, and had both bones of his right leg broken. Also he had many cuts and bruises over and about his body. He remained in the hospital for about 15 days and was then taken by ambulance to his home near Portsmouth. There is little question as to the nature and extent of his injuries. Two physicians stated that in their opinions, based upon examination, some of his injuries are permanent. At the time of the trial he was still suffering from headaches, dizziness, numbness, loss of motion in his leg, an attophy of its muscles, and injury to its nerves.
Within a few minutes after the collision various people came to the place of the accident. Among these were Harold Haller and Paul Schwery, local residents and friends of Michael Daeges. Both were witnesses. They testified that when they came Michael Daeges was out of the automobile, but Edwin Skalla was still in the rear seat. Paul Schwery testified that he asked Michael Daeges how the accident happened and Daeges said that he was speeding down the highway and his car got away from him and he was awake and his lights were on bright at the time he hit the bridge.
Haller testified that he heard Paul Schwery ask Mike if he fell asleep and Mike said 'No', that he was wide awake when he hit the bridge; that he had his bright headlights on, that his car was speeding and got away from him at the time he hit the bridge.
There was also evidence that about two weeks after the accident, Michael Daeges, in the tresence of five persons, including Schwery and Haller, stated that at the time of the accident he was driving between 90 and 100 miles per hour at the time he hit the bridge, and that his lights were on bright, that he was speeding and his car got away from him. All five present testified to such statements.
Witness Lawrence Pauley testified that he talked to Michael Daeges about May 1, 1942, in a cafe in Portsmouth and that he asked Mike how the accident happened and Mike said that he was driving from 90 to 100 miles per hour when he hit the bridge, that his headlights were on and that he was awake when he hit the bridge. Pauley also testified:
'Q. Now on this particular date, May 1st, 1942, and in the evening in White's Cafe, did Mike say anything else as to the accident, how it happened? A. Yes.
'Q. What did he say? A. He said, 'I wish I'd a rammed the damn car clear up to the middle of the bridge,' and then he laughed afterwards.
Witness Viola Zangerle testified that at a wedding dance on October 21, 1942, she had a talk with Michael Daeges and he told her he was going 90 to 100 miles per hour at the time he hit the bridge.
On December 17, 1942, Michael Daeges signed a written statement in which he told how the accident took place. He therein stated that the accident happened about 2 a. m.; that he was going around 70 miles per hour when he hit the bridge and that his lights were on and shown 150 feet ahead; that the pavement was dry and it was a clear night; that he was driving west on Highway No. 39 to Portsmouth; that he first saw the bridge about 50 feet ahead; that the road was clear; that there were bridge reflector signs on the east end; that he saw the bridge and almost immediately struck it; that he didn't have time to apply his brakes; that he had driven across the bridge dozens of times; that he was driving the car with the consent of...
To continue reading
Request your trial