Patterson v. City of Council Bluffs

59 N.W. 63, 91 Iowa 732
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedMay 24, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 59 N.W. 63 (Patterson v. City of Council Bluffs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Patterson v. City of Council Bluffs, 59 N.W. 63, 91 Iowa 732 (iowa 1894).

Opinion

Given, J.

The single question presented on this appeal is whether the facts proven show negligence on the ■•part of the defendant. The accident occurred on the sidewalk on Fifth avenue, between Tenth and Eleventh streets, and about the middle of the block. Formerly there had been a plank walk the' entire length of the block. Part of this walk was removed in 1890, and replaced by a brick walk, put down by order of the city, under supervision of the city engineer. At the point where the new brick walk joined the old plank walk there was a perpendicular offset of nearly four inches. Plaintiff, while passing along the middle of the walk, in the dusk of the evening, not observing this offset, stepped with her foot partially over it, and, in consequence of the offset, fell and was injured. Appellant's only contention is that the city is not required to keep a perfectly smooth and level sidewalk, but a reasonably safe one; and that we should say, as a matter of law, that such an offset in the sidewalk does not render it other than reasonably safe, and that to permit it to be and remain is not negligence. That such an offset is more or less dangerous is amply demonstrated by the accident to the plaintiff. Whether such an offset is so dangerous as that to permit it is negligence depends upon the surrounding circumstances, such as the proximity of lights, the amount of travel, and the like. We think it was for the jury to determine, in the light of the circumstances, whether the city was negligent in permitting this offset, and that question was submitted to the. jury under instructions against which no complaint is made. The facts warranted the jury in finding negligence. The judgment of the district COUrt ÍS AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Alber v. City of Dubuque
101 N.W.2d 185 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1960)
Beach v. City of Des Moines
26 N.W.2d 81 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1947)
Thomas v. Fort Madison
281 N.W. 748 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1938)
Howard v. City of Waterloo
206 Iowa 1108 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1928)
Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. Scheppelman
235 S.W. 206 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1921)
Geer v. City of Des Moines
183 Iowa 837 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1918)
Johnson v. City of Ames
181 Iowa 65 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1917)
Hanson v. City of Anamosa
177 Iowa 101 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1916)
Graham v. Town of Oxford
75 N.W. 473 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 N.W. 63, 91 Iowa 732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-city-of-council-bluffs-iowa-1894.