186 Iowa 736 | Iowa | 1919
I. On September 5, 1911, the appellee’s intestate came to his death while attempting to cross a bridge maintained by defendant county, with a threshing outfit. To the charge in petition that the bridge was, at this time, in unsafe condition, the answer interposes a general denial. But it is practically without dispute that the bridge was in bad condition and in a negligent state of repair, as early as June preceding, and the real claim of defendant is that it was put into safe condition by some repairs made in June. We think the errors relied upon for reversal may be disposed of without making a full statement of the facts.
We are of opinion the avoidance is good, and that, therefore, it was not reversible error to deny the motion of the defendant for an instructed verdict.
4-a
The further exception to Instruction 20 is that it submits to the jury whether the repairs that were made were temporary ones, and it is complained that such charge is not warranted, under any evidence in the case. We think that, in a sense, this is true. Everything indicates that
So of a claim that the motion for new trial should have been sustained because it appeared from the evidence that :the negligence of defendant was the proximate cause of his death. That question, too, went to the jury by consent.