Walker v. Decatur Co.

• Decision Date: 23 October 1885
• Parties: WALKER v. DECATUR CO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

67 Iowa 307

25 N.W. 256

WALKER

v.DECATUR CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed October 23, 1885.

Appeal from Clarke district court.

Action to recover damages because of an injury received by the plaintiff, caused by a defective county bridge. Trial by jury, and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.Bullock & Hoffman and Wright, Cummins & Wright, for Decatur county.

E. W. Curry, Samuel Forney, McIntire Bros., and Phillips & Day, for appellee, F. W. Walker.

SEEVERS, J.

1. The plaintiff was injured by stepping into a hole in the bridge, which was out of repair, and the plaintiff so knew prior to the day when he attempted to cross over it. The bridge had been so out of repair for some time. On the morning of the day of the accident, the plaintiff, with others, undertook to drive some hogs to Leon, the county seat, over the bridge, and the plaintiff was in advance of the hogs scattering straw over it at the time of the accident.

The defendant offered to prove on the trial “that plaintiff in this case could have reached his destination, being the depot at Leon, Iowa, by going a different route, over a good road and across a good bridge, at least a half a mile nearer than he could have reached it by the road he did travel upon.” An objection to this evidence that it was immaterial was sustained, and in so ruling appellant insists the court erred. Counsel for the appellee insist that the ruling is right, because there is no evidence which tends to show that the plaintiff's destination was the depot in Leon. The offer assumes that the depot was his destination. Construing the offer fairly it amounted to this: upon the supposition that the plaintiff's destination was the depot in Leon, we offer to prove, etc. Now, the objection was that the evidence offered was immaterial. In sustaining it we think the court must have held that the evidence was immaterial upon the supposition or basis of the offer. It is conceded that the plaintiff's destination was Leon, but it was material, because of the location of the depot, that his destination was at that particular place in the town. We, however, think there was some evidence that the plaintiff's destination was the depot. The plaintiff testifies that “it would be from where he started with the hogs one-half mile to main road north, and from there to Leon depot from three and a half to four miles.” Besides this, we think that the jury might have come to the conclusion from the evidence that the hogs were to be delivered to the depot for shipment. Taking into consideration the form of the question, the objection thereto, the ruling, what the court and parties must have thought and intended the decision meant, its bearing on the introduction of evidence, and the whole evidence, we think the evidence offered should have been admitted. Parkhill v. Town of Brighton, 61 Iowa, 103;S. C. 15 N. W. Rep. 853.

2. The defendant asked the court to instruct the jury as follows: “If you find that plaintiff knew of the dangerous and unsafe condition of the bridge,...