109 Iowa 219 | Iowa | 1899
Plaintiff was hurt by falling over a loose board in a walk. After her injury, the owner of the abutting lot took up the old walk, and laid a new one. Evidence
The next ground of complaint is that evidence was received relating to the original construction of the walk, which was built some considerable time before the accident
In, order to show that defendant, bad assumed tbe care and control of tbe sidewalks within its limits, plaintiff offered in evidence an ordinance of defendant city providing for tbe laying of such walks, an amendment relating to their reconstruction, and also an ordinance providing for tbe appointment of a sidewalk commissioner. This evidence was objected to, but its introduction was permitted. This action of tbe court, it is insisted, was erroneous. Tbe argument of appellant is that these ordinances were not admissible, because not pleaded. If this action was founded upon the ordinances, appellant’s line of reasoning would apply'; but such is not tbe ease. We do not think plaintiff was called upon to. offer proof of this kind. Tbe municipal char.acter of tbe defendant was not put in issue, and tbe duty sought to be proved attaches’ necessarily to that character. ’ 2 Dillon Municipal Corporations, 998. But, if it was unnecessary to make tbe proof, it does not follow that tbe court erred in permitting it to be done. Tbe ground argued here for tbe complaint is' certainly not good. Fernbach v. City of Waterloo, 16 Iowa, 598. '
Plaintiff was. a married woman, residing with her bus-band. The twenty-first paragraph of tbe trial court’s charge is challenged, as permitting the jury to award plaintiff, as