Uhlenhopp v. Steege
| Citation | 7 N.W.2d 195,233 Iowa 368 |
| Decision Date | 30 December 1942 |
| Docket Number | 46132. |
| Parties | UHLENHOPP v. STEEGE. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
As Modified on Denial of Rehearing April 21, 1943.
Geiser & Donohue, of New Hampton, for appellant.
Uhlenhopp & Uhlenhopp, of Hampton, for appellee.
Plaintiff's automobile collided with the rear of defendant's automobile that had been parked near the edge of a paved country highway, which collision resulted in damages to plaintiff's car. An action was brought by plaintiff to recover damages. Upon trial a verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff and judgment was entered thereon. A motion for a new trial and exceptions to instructions were overruled and the defendant has appealed.
The plaintiff's petition alleges that the defendant's car was parked on the north half of the main traveled portion of a highway after dark on February 15, 1942; that no flares or signals were provided to warn travelers of the presence of the car; that the plaintiff, driving his new Plymouth Sedan automobile, could not and did not see defendant's parked car until he was within thirty feet of it because of fog and poor visibility; that he collided with the back end thereof and thereby sustained damages; that the plaintiff was operating his automobile with due care, was keeping a careful lookout, and was driving at about 20 or 25 miles per hour when he first saw defendant's automobile; that due to a patch of ice hidden from view by a thin covering of fresh snow, and of which ice plaintiff had no knowledge, plaintiff was unable to stop or control his car which skidded forward and against the back end of defendant's automobile; that the collision and damages were not caused by any negligence on plaintiff's part but were caused by defendant's negligence in the following particulars: (1) That defendant stopped, parked, and left his automobile on the main traveled portion of the paved public highway, outside of a business and residence district, when there was a level dirt shoulder nine feet wide adjoining the pavement immediately to the north; (2) that defendant was negligent in stopping, parking and leaving his automobile on the main traveled portion of said public highway, in that he failed to leave a clear and unobstructed width of at least 20 feet opposite the standing vehicle; (3) that defendant was negligent in stopping, parking and leaving his automobile on the traveled portion of the highway when a clear view of such automobile was not available for a distance of 200 feet from the east upon said highway; (4) that defendant was negligent in stopping, parking and leaving his automobile on the highway when the weather was foggy and visibility was poor, and the road surface slippery, and further in that no sufficient signal warnings were provided.
The defendant, by way of answer, plead that at or near the point where the collision referred to in plaintiff's petition occurred, the right rear tire on his car became deflated and that he immediately drove his car to the far right or the north side of the highway so that the wheels on the right side were on the shoulder and that he brought his car to a stop; that at all times thereafter and until the collision there were two rear lights burning on his car, one on the right rear side and one on the left rear side, and that the headlights were burning; that plaintiff drove his car into and against the rear of defendant's car. Defendant further alleged that he was guilty of no negligence that in any manner contributed to said collision but specifically alleged that the proximate cause of the accident was due to the negligence of the plaintiff in driving his car at such a rate of speed that he did not have the same under control and could not bring it to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead; that plaintiff failed to keep a proper lookout, and observe defendant's car, and that due to plaintiff's failure to keep a proper lookout he could not bring his car to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.
It is defendant's contention that the court erred in the following particulars: (1) In admitting in evidence, over the objection of the defendant, an exhibit which was an itemized statement setting forth the cost of the repairs to plaintiff's car; (2) in restricting the cross-examination of the plaintiff with reference to the distance within which his car could be brought to a stop under the conditions as they existed at the time of the collision, and also in further restricting the cross-examination of the plaintiff with reference to his knowledge of stopping distances as set forth in a chart that had been prepared and published by the Iowa Public Safety Department; (3) in overruling defendant's motion to direct a verdict because the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law; (4) that the court erred in the giving of certain instructions that will be commented on later in detail.
I. The defendant asserts that the trial court was in error in admitting as an exhibit a repair bill wherein was set forth the claimed items of damage to plaintiff's car. It is contended that there was no evidence to show what parts of plaintiff's car were damaged in the collision, that there was no showing that the parts itemized in the exhibit were used to repair the parts damaged, and that the plaintiff failed to show that the cost of repairing the car did not exceed the actual value of the automobile as of the date of the collision.
The record shows that the car was a 1941 Plymouth and that it had been purchased new in May of that year, that the repairs made were for the parts that were damaged and that necessary new ones were furnished. It is further shown that prior to the collision the car was in no way damaged and was in good condition. The repair bill was in the amount of $253.24 which was the amount of the verdict returned.
It is true that this court has held where property is damaged and can be repaired and placed in as good condition as before, the measure of damages is the reasonable cost of the repair but not to exceed the value of the property before it was damaged. Leizure v. Des Moines Ry. Co., 214 Iowa 918, 241 N.W. 480; Langham v. C., R. I. & P. Ry Co., 201 Iowa 897, 208 N.W. 356. There was no proof of the value of the car before the collision. If there was error in the admission of the exhibit we hold...
To continue reading
Request your trial