Weirs v. Jones County

• Decision Date: 29 May 1890
• Citation: 45 N.W. 883,80 Iowa 351
• Parties: WEIRS v. JONES COUNTY
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

45 N.W. 883

80 Iowa 351

WEIRS v. JONES COUNTY

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

May 29, 1890

Decided May, 1890.

Appeal from Jones District Court.--HON. JAMES D. GIFFEN, Judge.

ACTION to recover damages caused by the falling of a bridge. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. The defendant appeals.

REVERSED.

F. O Ellison, for appellant.

Sheean & McCarn, for appellee.

OPINION

ROBINSON, J.

It is conceded that the bridge in question was a county bridge, and that it was known to the board of supervisors of defendant to be in an unsafe condition prior to the time of its falling. About the fourth day of September, 1888, the board caused it to be examined and condemned. By authority and direction of the board, signboards bearing, in large letters, the words "Bridge unsafe" were prepared; and, on the fifth day of September, 1888, one was nailed up at each end of the bridge, in a conspicuous place. In addition, at one end of the bridge two wires were stretched across the bridge at about the height of the breast of a horse, and securely fastened to the sides by means of staples; and a wire was stretched and fastened in a similar manner at the other end of the bridge. The bridge was in an isolated place, and was used but little. It was about three hundred feet in length and eighteen or twenty feet above the water of the stream. On the ninth day of September, 1888, the plaintiff crossed the bridge in the morning without accident. The signs were then on the bridge, and the wires were there, but loosened at one end, and thrown to one side, in such a manner as not to form any obstruction to the crossing of the bridge. Plaintiff claims that he could not read English, and that he did not see the signs nor the wires, and did not know the condition of the bridge, not having been to it for a year before. On his return in the evening the bridge fell while he was on it with his team, and as a result his horses were killed, and the wagon was damaged. The court instructed the jury as follows: "7. It was the duty of the defendant, when it knew the bridge was unsafe, to give such notice thereof to the public as would be effective, or, if obstructions and notices were both relied upon, they should be such, taken together, as would be effective; and it would also be the duty of the defendant to see that such notices and obstructions were kept and continued there in such manner as would be sufficient to inform a person exercising ordinary care of the unsafe condition of said bridge. Hence, if you find from the evidence that the notices put on the ends of said bridge, and the wires placed across the ends thereof were not reasonably sufficient to notify a person exercising ordinary care of the unsafe condition of said bridge, or if after the same were placed there, they were not kept or continued there by defendant in such manner as to be reasonably sufficient to notify a person exercising ordinary care of the unsafe condition of said bridge; and, if you further find from the evidence that the plaintiff, without any notice of its unsafe condition, and without fault or negligence on his part, drove onto the bridge, and was injured,--then defendant would be liable." Appellant complains of this instruction on the ground that it makes defendant responsible for damages which resulted from its failure to continue and maintain the notices and obstructions, even though it used ordinary and reasonable care to do so. The court refused to give an instruction asked by defendant, which, in substance and effect, announced the law to be that, if defendant caused the bridge in question to be obstructed by suitable...