The daily Gate City and constitution-Democrat. (Keokuk, Iowa) 1916-1922, 1916-10-25
In Plain sIohc-

In Plain SsSnG
Tns obstruction complained OF was
In plain sight and might have been
seen br plaintiff had she been using
her eyes Plaintiffs counsel seek 70
iris Ea.h CLAIM ths- her sttsn-
TIN uzs diverted By the act Of show
ing hs- dzugasr z powder box which
sae had taken from her pocket book
s16 REPLACING the powder 3D. therein.
aad TIA. this excused her from what
might otherwise have been cont-ioU-
tory negligence OF her part
The supreme court OF this state
has ii Is true recognized the rule
Thai where ones attention Is divert
ID for the time bsing, and through
this diversion he Is lead into dan
Es-czs opening. for instance, in the
Sidewalk. the jury may find his con-
duc1 sxcuszbls-
II the csss Of Bender Us. the Town
OF Mindsa the court considers what
VIII constitute s1ca q diversion as
~fla excuse the party injured The
where they stoppedshrtiul crnfwypvD
~sr-s Of the case are these
Tcsrs are two principal streets
in the town At about the
nolr Of rSo p n plalnnn
left his hotel 10 go 70 the postof-ice
travelling nan with whom ne Was &C
ouasa.sd and PASSED down the board
2szik with him until they arrived at
4 point Just IN trcut OF the saloon.
where Their stopped and talked fifteen
Or twenty minutes When the CONVEX
sarioa vas concluded. plaintiff saluted
nts COMPANION. turned around and re-
suraed Lis souTney and fell into hole
i'm .ha sidewalk $50 In that case
ztainiirs counsel contends that
.sssintiFs attention vas diverted
by conversation with the travelling
man. and that excused him
In that case. the supreme court
ear. what will constitute such
diversion &c kiiI excuse him This Is
he pivotal question On this branch OF
The case. II the diversion is self-in
inced that is to say, due 70 inattention
and heedIessness, il Is not diFerhng
,zuse. Indeed. We have expressly
leld that the presence Of other parties
with whom injured person is talking
IS 10. q oiyerting canse.
Clearly c:s.inssishsbse.
Counsel for the plaintiff contends
that in recent decision the supreme
court has not followed. the rule as to
dfverting cause. The case which they
seem TO rely upon Is that of Enright
vs.. Dubuque But 10 m- mind the
case is clearly distinguishable- We
must bear in mind that this case diff
sers from one where there is de-
feet in the sidewalk itself. For. as
nereinbetore stated, for a defect in
~
be on the lookout, for he may assume
that 10 defect exists, but as to proper
obstruction the rule Is different II
walk into an obstruction and say that
he f. not obliged TO look out for IL
and therefore not negligent In the
Eoright case the covering OF man
hole in the cement sidewalk had
been removed II was case of de-
feet in the sidewalk Again, the de-
feet was not visible In the case at
bar the obstruction was plainly Wis
ible- Again the diverting cause was
a special exigency arising by reason
OF the plaintiff having missed her
car and being required to make a
change in her plans
IN the opinion of this court the
case is clearly ruled by the prin-
cipies Of law laid down in cases
heretofore cited and other rulings Of
tie supreme court I feel constrain-
ed. gentlemen, &c sustain this motion,
II Il ordered that defend
ants motion be sustained and plain
tiff be granted an exception.
Resume Work Tomorrow.
The jury was ordered to report to-