Thomas v. Pocatello Power & Irrigation Co.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho
Writing for the CourtSULLIVAN, J.
Citation7 Idaho 435,63 P. 595
Decision Date22 December 1900
PartiesTHOMAS v. POCATELLO POWER AND IRRIGATION COMPANY

63 P. 595

7 Idaho 435

THOMAS
v.
POCATELLO POWER AND IRRIGATION COMPANY

Supreme Court of Idaho

December 22, 1900


NEGLIGENCE IN MAINTAINING FOOTBRIDGE.-When an action is brought to recover damages for the negligent and careless construction and maintenance of a footbridge, and the evidence wholly fails to establish the allegations of the complaint in that regard, the judgment for plaintiff must be reversed.

EVIDENCE.-When there is no substantial conflict in the evidence, and the verdict of the jury is contrary to such evidence, a judgment based upon said verdict will be reversed upon appeal.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from District Court, Bannock County.

Reversed and remanded, with instructions. Costs of this appeal awarded to the appellant.

Dietrich, Chalmers & Stevens, for Appellant.

We contend that in the light of both principle and the overwhelming weight of authority, the record shows no negligence on the part of the defendant. That, therefore, the verdict of the jury is not supported by the evidence. (Robinson v. O. S. L. Ry. Co., 7 Utah 493, 27 P. 689; George v. Los Angeles Ry. Co., 126 Cal. 357, 77 Am. St. Rep. 184, 58 P. 819; A. T. & S. F. Co. v. Potter, 60 Kan. 808, 72 Am. Rep. 385, 58 P. 471; Omaha v. Bowman, 52 Neb. 293, 66 Am. St. Rep. 506, 72 N.W. 316, 40 L. R. A. 531; Ritz v. Wheeling, 45 W.Va. 262, 31 S.E. 993, 43 L. R. A. 148; Dobbins v. Missouri etc. R. R. Co., 91 Tex. 60, 66 Am. St. Rep. 856, 41 S.W. 62, 38 L. R. A. 573.) Cooper v. Overton, 102 Tenn. 211, 73 Am. St. Rep. 864, 52 S.W. 183, 45 L. R. A. 591, involves the drowning of a child ten years old, and is a very exhaustive review of the authorities. (Holt v. Spokane R. R. Co., 3 Idaho 703, 35 P. 39, 4 Idaho 443, 40 P. 56; Overholt v. Vieths, 93 Mo. 422, 3 Am. St. Rep. 557, 6 S.W. 74; Hargreaves v. Deacon, 25 Mich. 1; Richards v. Connell, 45 Neb. 467, 63 N.W. 915; Gillespie v. McGowan, 100 Pa. 144, 45 Am. Rep. 365.)

Winters & Guheen, for Respondent.

As the evidence shows persons passing over the bridge could not be regarded as trespassers, certainly children playing there from day to day, to the knowledge of the defendant, could not be regarded as such trespassers as would prevent a recovery. (Price v. Atchinson Water Co., 58 Kan. 551, 50 P. 450, 62 Am. St. Rep. 625; Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. McDonald, 152 U.S. 262, 14 S.Ct. 619; Kinchlow v. Midland Elevator Co., 57 Kan. 374, 46 P. 703; Bennett v. Railroad Co., 102 U.S. 577; Holt v. Spokane etc. Ry. Co., 3 Idaho 703, 35 P. 39; Consolidated City etc. P. Ry. Co. v. Carlson, 48 P. 635; Branson v. Lobrot, 81 Ky. 638, 50 Am. Rep. 193; Pekin v. McMahon, 154 Ill. 141, 45 Am. St. Rep. 114, 39 N.E. 484; Birge v. Gardner, 19 Conn. 507, 50 Am. Dec. 261; Earl v. Cronck, 131 N.Y. 613, 30 N.E. 864, affirming S. C., 61 Hun, 624, 16 N.Y.S. 770; Mackey v. Vicksburg, 64 Miss. 777, 2 So. 178; Hydraulic Works Co. v. Orr, 83 Pa. 332; Keefe v. Railroad Co., 21 Minn. 207, 18 Am. Rep. 393; Spokane etc. Ry. Co. v. Holt, 4 Idaho 443, 40 P. 56; Sioux City R. R. Co. v. Stout, 17 Wall. 657; Brinkley Mfg. Co. v. Cooper, 60 Ark. 545, 46 Am. St. Rep. 216, 31 S.W. 154.) The rule is that the defendant is required to allege contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, and prove it by a preponderance of the evidence and the burden was not upon the plaintiff to disprove such contributory negligence. No such plea was interposed in this case. (Harrington v. Eureka Hill Min. Co., 17 Utah 300, 53 P. 737; Hough v. Railway Co., 100 U.S. 213; Railroad Co. v. Horst, 93 U.S. 291; Shearman and Redfield on Negligence, sec. 109; Beach on Contributory Negligence, sec. 426, and the many cases cited.)

SULLIVAN, J. Huston, C. J., and Quarles, J., concur.

OPINION

[7 Idaho 437] SULLIVAN, J.

This is an action brought by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • York v. Pacific & Northern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • June 27, 1902
    ...the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury to return a verdict in favor of appellant, and cites Thomas v. Pocatello etc. Irr. Co., 7 Idaho 435, 63 P. 595. This case holds that when an action is brought to recover damages for the negligent and careless construction and maintenance of a......
  • Bass v. Quinn-Robbins Co., QUINN-ROBBINS
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • April 6, 1950
    ...or unusual danger or trap. Best v. District of Columbia, 291 U.S. 411, 54 S.Ct. 487, 78 L.Ed. 882; Thomas v. Pocatello P. & I. Co., 7 Idaho 435, 63 P. 595; Cox v. Alabama Water Co., 216 Ala. 35, 112 So. 352, 53 A.L.R. 1336; Kansas City v. Siese, 71 Kan. 283, 80 P. 626; Cicero State Bank......
  • Watkins v. Mountain Home Co-operative Irrigation Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • April 2, 1921
    ...Bank v. Lieuallen, 5 Idaho 47, 46 P. 1020; Work Bros. v. Kinney, 7 Idaho 460, 63 P. 596; Thomas v. Pocatello P. & Irr. Co., 7 Idaho 435, 63 P. 595; Zienke v. Northern P. R. Co., 8 Idaho 54, 66 P. 828; First Nat. Bank v. Carter, 8 Idaho 391, 69 P. 123; Idaho Mercantile Co. v. Kalanquin, ......
  • Chase v. Washington Water Power Company, a Corp., 6816
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • March 24, 1941
    ...It is not sufficient to show that an accident occurred; there must be some evidence of negligence. (Thomas v. Pocatello Power Company, 7 Idaho 435; Charles Le Deau v. Northern P. Ry Co., 19 Idaho 711; Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Wilson, 45 P.2d 750.) Where there is a third agency whi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • York v. Pacific & Northern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • June 27, 1902
    ...the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury to return a verdict in favor of appellant, and cites Thomas v. Pocatello etc. Irr. Co., 7 Idaho 435, 63 P. 595. This case holds that when an action is brought to recover damages for the negligent and careless construction and maintenance of a......
  • Bass v. Quinn-Robbins Co., QUINN-ROBBINS
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • April 6, 1950
    ...or unusual danger or trap. Best v. District of Columbia, 291 U.S. 411, 54 S.Ct. 487, 78 L.Ed. 882; Thomas v. Pocatello P. & I. Co., 7 Idaho 435, 63 P. 595; Cox v. Alabama Water Co., 216 Ala. 35, 112 So. 352, 53 A.L.R. 1336; Kansas City v. Siese, 71 Kan. 283, 80 P. 626; Cicero State Bank......
  • Watkins v. Mountain Home Co-operative Irrigation Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • April 2, 1921
    ...Bank v. Lieuallen, 5 Idaho 47, 46 P. 1020; Work Bros. v. Kinney, 7 Idaho 460, 63 P. 596; Thomas v. Pocatello P. & Irr. Co., 7 Idaho 435, 63 P. 595; Zienke v. Northern P. R. Co., 8 Idaho 54, 66 P. 828; First Nat. Bank v. Carter, 8 Idaho 391, 69 P. 123; Idaho Mercantile Co. v. Kalanquin, ......
  • Chase v. Washington Water Power Company, a Corp., 6816
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • March 24, 1941
    ...It is not sufficient to show that an accident occurred; there must be some evidence of negligence. (Thomas v. Pocatello Power Company, 7 Idaho 435; Charles Le Deau v. Northern P. Ry Co., 19 Idaho 711; Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Wilson, 45 P.2d 750.) Where there is a third agency whi......
  • 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