Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1902-12-16
An Important Decision Rem
dered in the District Court
at Rockwell City
THE LIABILITY FOR ACCIDENTS
Court Holds That Company Is Not LA
BILE for Injuries Caused by Collision
With the Poles Where They Are
Placed So as to Not Interfere With
Ordinary Travel.
Special to Times Republican.

Rockwell City, Dec. 16-'rhe most
important case that has been called for
hearing at this term of court was that
of Albert Krlisley, of Lake City, against
the Central Telephone Company of this
city, which has been decided by Judge
Elwood in favor of the defendant. The
decision rendered in this case is not
only a matter of local Importance to
the parties to the action, but will be of
general interest to every city and town
in the state and to people travelling
along public highways where telephone
lines have been constructed. The case
briefly summed up is about as follows
The plaintiff alleges that he is minor
about Is years of age and that on the
18th day of February, 1902, he was
coasting down a steep hill north OF
Lake City on sleigh and came
in violent contact with one of the tele-
phone poles of defendant that was
within four feet of the grade and
travelled portion of the highway, and
by reason of coming in violent contact
with said pole he was seriously in
jured by fracture of his ribs on both
sides of the breast-bone and backbone,
for which injuries he asks for dam
ages in the amount of $1,995. The case
was tried before jury, and after the
plaintiff had introduced his evidence,
and rested, the defendant moved fer
directed verdict. Some of the grounds
,F a ha MI
dence failed to show any negligence
on the part of defendant; that plain
tiff was guilty of negligence which
caused or contributed to his injury, and
that he assumed the risk in coasting at
the place and time he was injured.
After argument of counsel Judge Ell
wood, in passing on said motion, stated.
that by statute in this state, and by
ordinance of Lake City where plaintiff
was injured, the defendant was au-
thorized to place it's poles in the street,
and that the pole being where it was
not per Sc a nuisance, and that the
evidence did not tend to show wilful
obstruction of the highway by said
pole. The pole complained of stood
on the side of an embankment or fill
and was not on the track of the high
way over which travel passed, but was
on the side of the embankment at
place where it could not interfere with
travel, and no one could be injured
in passing it unless by accident he was
thrown off of the travelled track and
down the embankment. That the law
provides for poles on the highway,
but does not provide that they shall be
on any particular part of it, and unless
they are SO placed as to interfere with
travel or the ordinary use Of the high
way it is not negligent to have them
in any part of the highway. That the
evidence showed that 1t was
dangerous to coast at the time and
place plaintiff was coasting when he
was injured; that he was aware of the
danger, and that in attempting to coast
there he assumed the risk. That the
plaintiff was guilty of contributory neg
ligence which negligence cause his in
jury. The evidence showed that plain
tiff, at the time he was injured, was
with others on a bob-sleigh, coasting
down very steep hill on Ice, and that
the party guiding it turned the front
bob into the bank, causing it to upset
and throw the plaintiff out of said