Case Name: Gladys S. Nicholson, administratrix cum testamento annexo of estate of Winfred Vincent, appellant, v. City of Des Moines, appellee
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1953-09-22
Citations: 245 Iowa 270
Docket Number: No. 48317
Parties: Gladys S. Nicholson, administratrix cum testamento annexo of estate of Winfred Vincent, appellant, v. City of Des Moines, appellee.
Judges: Bliss, Garfield, Mulroney, Thompson, and Larson, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 245
Pages: 270–293

Head Matter:
Gladys S. Nicholson, administratrix cum testamento annexo of estate of Winfred Vincent, appellant, v. City of Des Moines, appellee.
No. 48317.
(Reported in 60 N.W.2d 240)
September 22, 1953.
Rehearing Denied December 18, 1953.
Dickinson, Throckmorton, Keir, Parker & Mannheimer, of Des Moines, for appellant.
John A. Blanchard, Harris M. Coggeshall and Frank D. Bianco, all of Des Moines, for appellee.

Opinion:
Oliver, J.
— Plaintiff's decedent, Winfred Vincent, aged seventy-two years, was a carpenter by occupation. The petition alleged he died from injuries caused by his falling into a pit at the northwest corner of the bridge spanning Four Mile Creek on Easton Boulevard between East Thirty-sixth Street and East Thirty-seventh Street, Des Moines; that immediately prior to falling into the pit, decedent was walking east on a cinder covered path maintained by the City along the north side of Easton Boulevard, which path led directly to a walk for pedestrians at the north side of the bridge; that his death was caused by the negligence of the City in failing to maintain a barrier or railing and a street light at the place and give warning of the pit.
Defendant's motion for directed verdict wa§ sustained. The main question here is whether there was sufficient evidence of negligence of the City to require the submission of that issue to the jury. Under the rule applicable in such cases the evidence will be considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff.
Mr. Vincent's body was discovered in the pit, March 25, 1952. He was last seen alive shortly after 11:30 p. m., March 24, by the driver of a curbliner bus which had transported decedent from downtown Des Moines to the bus terminal at East Thirty-third Street and Easton Boulevard. From that point decedent had frequently walked east on Easton Boulevard about three city blocks to and across the bridge, and several blocks farther to his home. For the first two blocks east of the bus terminal there was a cement sidewalk along the north side of Easton Boulevard. Between the east end of this sidewalk and the pedestrian's lane on the north part of the bridge, a distance of approximately one block, the sidewalk maintained by the City was .a cinder path several feet in width, without definite margins. Photographs show this cinder path was rough and somewhat irregular. At the corners of the bridge were concrete extensions of side rails, about twelve feet long, which flared outward several feet. For most of its distance the east and west cinder path ran on a line which would have carried it some feet north of the north edge of the bridge and abutments and into the pit. As it neared the bridge the cinder path curved to the south, ran inside the concrete railing and connected with the sidewalk on the north part of the bridge. The bridge is a few feet south of a bridge it replaced. A witness testified: "When the old bridge was there we had a cement sidewalk then leading all the way to the old structure #. At that time the cement sidewalk led directly to the north side of the old structure. The sidewalk was straight." The City made the curved, cinder p.ath as the approach to the new bridge which was constructed about 1943 or 1945.
The pit or hole was in the west bank of the creek. Apparently it had been formed by the washing away of the soil by the discharge of water from an eighteen-inch concrete pipe installed by the City to carry surface water from a ditch on the south side of the cinder path. This drain pipe passed underneath the cinder path and through the west bank of the creek. Since about 1943 or 1945 the washing away of the soil by the water discharged by the pipe had caused the pit or hole to encroach upon the west bank of the creek a few feet farther (west) and the end (east) section of the drain pipe had become exposed and unsupported and had fallen off. This disconnected section, several feet long,- had been lying in the bottom of the pit for some years. The walls of the pit were precipitous. Its depth was estimated at ten to fifteen feet, its width eight feet. Glenn Davis testified the west edge of the pit was ten or twelve feet west of the west end of the bridge. The pit was in line with the cinder path, before the path turned into the bridge. This would locate it within the line of the street but outside the traveled portion thereof.
Exhibit E is a photograph taken the morning the body was found. The camera apparently pointed west. It shows the pit, with a light layer of snow on the ground, the end of the drainage pipe, the disconnected section of pipe in the bottom of the pit and beside it, indistinctly, decedent's body. It shows .also the west end of the bridge and a police car which brought the coroner to the place.
Exhibit H is a photograph taken, with the camera pointed east. Witnesses testified it shows the west end of the bridge, the west concrete abutment, the cinder path leading to the bridge, the curve in the cinder path and the edge of the pit. The day-decedent's body was found there was a little more snow on the ground than the following day when Exhibit H was taken.
Glenn Davis testified that, at the northwest corner of the bridge, the pit was six feet from the north edge of the cinder path. The coroner, Doctor Shaw, testified the approximate distance from the concrete barrier to where the end of the tile drained into the creek was about four or five feet. When he came to view the body he clung to the railing and the girders of the bridge to get down to it. He testified the pathway between the bridge and the pit "was not very wide possibly four to six feet wide." B. H. Frost placed the distance at eight and one-half feet. The estimate of Mrs. Davis was six feet.
The evidence indicates the curve in the cinder path was about twelve to sixteen feet west of the pit. Witnesses testified that a person walking easterly on this cinder path if he were to continue east in a straight line would walk on the north side of the concrete abutment and into the pit. A witness testified that one morning .in a snowstorm, " I had my head down walking down what I thought was the path, and the first thing I knew I was over pretty close to the edge of this embankment. >::= m * Snow was on the ground and you couldn't tell where you were."
The city maintained a street light at the northwest corner of the bridge but it was unlighted at times and had not been burning for several nights prior to and including March 24, 1952. The cinder path and the vicinity of the pit were enveloped in darkness. There was a light snow on the ground. Some people walking along the cinder path that night were unable to see their way and found it necessary to use a flashlight. The record does not show Mr. Vincent intentionally left the cinder path. There was no barrier, fence or other structure to prevent a person who walked east in the. direction of travel along the cinder path from falling into the pit if he failed to make the turn near the bridge and continued forward about twelve or sixteen feet.
Mr. Vincent's body was found in the pit at about seven o'clock the following morning. Doctor Shaw testified he examined the bottom of the pit and found an indentation such as might have been made by a man's head; that Mr. Vincent's death was caused by head and brain injuries, and "The autopsy findings were consistent with the belief that the injuries were received as a result of a fall into the deep gorge when the man struck his head on the frozen ground." Doctor Shaw expressed the opinion Mr. Vincent died about three or three-thirty that morning, several hours after he had fallen into the pit. Plaintiff's theory is that Mr. Vincent, walking homeward along the cinder path in the darkness, unintentionally left the cinder path near the bridge and fell to his death in the pit, and that the proximate cause of his fall and death was the negligent failure of the City to maintain a proper barrier and street light.
I. Municipal corporations are required to exercise ordinary care to make and keep their streets and public ways, including bridges and their approaches, reasonably safe for travelers thereon using ordinary care. This requires municipalities to protect travelers from dangerous places or hazards in all parts of the way opened to public use. Nor is such requirement limited to defects within the traveled way. Bixby v. Sioux City, 184 Iowa 89, 96, 164 N.W. 641, 644, contains a good statement of this rule. The court there pointed out it knew of no reason or authority for saying the care required of the municipality "does not include the fence or barrier, if any, erected between the street and a dangerous cliff or excavation, over which a traveler using such street is liable to fall. Indeed, it has often been held that the lack of a proper barrier in such a situation, although the excavation or pit is not within the street boundary, is, nevertheless, a defect in the street, within the meaning of the law."
A striking example of the application of this rule is found in Manderschid v. Dubuque, 29 Iowa 73, 87, 4 Am. Rep. 196, which states:
"The bridge, it is insisted, is a quarter of a mile from the beginning of the extension of Sixth Street proper. It is insisted that it cannot be possible the bridge is in such near proximity to the street, that, in contemplation of law, the city would be liable for injuries sustained by reason of its dangerous character.
"We think differently. It is the duty of the city, not only to keep the street in repair, but to erect barriers and protections to prevent travelers from passing, without its limits but in its general direction, into dangers and obstructions. The city .cannot be permitted to suffer a street to terminate in a kind of a cul de sac leading to precipices or pitfalls, whereby the life and property of the traveler is endangered.
"The court by the instruction very properly left the jury to determine whether the defective bridge was so near the public highway as to be dangerous to persons traveling thereon."
In Hall v. Incorporated Town of Manson, 99 Iowa 698, 703, 68 N.W. 922, 924, 34 L. R. A. 207, plaintiff while walking on a crosswalk, in the darkness, inadvertently stepped into an unguarded and unlighted excavation for water mains, at the edge of the crossing. The court stated the town's duty to keep its crossing in a reasonably safe condition extended not merely to the surface of the street or walk but to those things within its control which endangered the safety of those using the street or walk properly, and that a street or sidewalk might be defective due to the presence of something which was a menace to the safety of users as well as to defects in construction. "The real question is, is the defect complained of in the walk itself, or so near it as to endanger the persons of those properly using it."
The defect in Parker v. Incorporated City of Bedford, 139 Iowa 545, 547, 117 N.W. 955, 956, was a ditch in the parking, a number of feet from the traveled way. The decision states: "The question whether, under' all the circumstances, the city should have left such an excavation so near the traveled portion of the street without guard or barricade, was a question for the jury."
Whitlatch v. Iowa Falls, 199 Iowa 73, 79, 201 N.W. 83, 86, involved an unguarded approach to a bridge. That decision states: "The finding of the jury that the proximate cause of the injury was the failure to maintain proper barriers or guardrails at the point in question finds support in the evidence. The court withdrew all other allegations of negligence from the jury, and no question was submitted as to the presence of the ruts or depressions in the street."
Lawrence v. Sioux City, 172 Iowa 320, 322, 154 N.W. 494, 495, involved a death caused by an automobile missing a turn in an approach to a bridge which spanned a gully. The decision states:
"The street had been graded to within about thirty feet of the gully, and at the end of the grade, the traveled way swerved to the west before crossing the bridge. The driver, as he approached, observed the east railing of the bridge, and, owing to its location, supposed it to be on the west side and that he was driving toward the bridge. The night was dark and there were no lights or barricades; and when Knott first noticed that he was east of the bridge, the car was so near the gully that he could not stop before being precipitated to the bottom of the gully .
"That the evidence was such as warranted a finding that •the city was negligent is not questioned."
Space does not permit reference to many of the decisions cited by defendant. Among these is Cox v. Des Moines, 235 Iowa 178, 16 N.W.2d 234. There the proof of negligence was held insufficient to generate a jury question. The earlier decision in that case, Cox v. Des Moines, 233 Iowa 272, 7 N.W.2d 32, in which the pleaded facts were held sufficient, is more comparable factually to the case at bar. However, Cox failed to prove the case he had pleaded. He pleaded he inadvertently stepped off the sidewalk. He proved he did so intentionally. In various other respects noted in the decisions the proofs in the last appeal did not conform to the pleadings in the earlier appeal.
O'Laughlin v. Dubuque, 42 Iowa 539, 541, is not factually in point. That case involved a pedestrian hastily crossing a street diagonally and not on a regular crossing, who slipped on ice and fell just as he reached the opposite sidewalk. An instruction that travelers would not be compelled to use crosswalks, if it was necessary to avoid an obstruction or apparent danger, was held erroneous because there was no evidence of any such obstruction or apparent danger.
The decisions cited by the trial court as supporting the order directing the verdict were Alline v. Le Mars, 71 Iowa 654, 33 N.W. 160, and Earl v. Cedar Rapids, 126 Iowa 361, 364, 102 N.W. 140, 141, 106 Am. St. Rep. 361. The decision in Alline v. Le Mars was based upon contributory negligence and the question of the negligence of the city was not determined. Moreover, that plaintiff was able to see the limits of the walk and voluntarily stepped from it. Earl v. Cedar Rapids allowed recovery by a pedestrian who fell through an open trap door into a cellarway. The decision states: "Even an excavation entirely outside the street line, but so near thereto as to endanger the traveling public, is held to be a nuisance # ."
Many courts subscribe to the rule that where excavations, declivities, embankments or other dangerous defects substantially adjoin the street or sidewalk or are in such close proximity thereto as to make it unsafe, it is the duty of the municipality to take reasonable precautions to render it safe for travel by those using it in the ordinary way. 63 C. J. S. 159, 160, Municipal Corporations, section 822; 25 Am. Jur. 814, Highways, section 531. How far a dangerous place must be from a highway in order to ce.ase to be in close proximity to it must be determined with regard to the circumstances of the particular case. 25 Am. Jur. 814, Highways, section 531.
Warner v. Inhabitants of Holyoke, 112 Mass. 362, 363, points out that the law has nowhere undertaken to define such distance in feet or inches and it is a practical question for the jury. Such distance is merely a circumstance to be considered in determining whether the way is reasonably safe for public travel.
Crogan v. Schiele, 53 Conn. 186, 196, 1 A. 899, 901, 55 Am. Rep. 88, states:
" 'We think that in making the defendant's liability to depend upon the dangerous condition in which the excavation was left by the defendant rather than upon its distance from the street, the judge adopted the true criterion. It is the dangerous character rather than the exact location of the excavation that determines the duty and consequent liability of' the defendant in this respect. Whether the excavation could, with a due regard to the rights of-passengers on the street, be left unguarded, or could not, depended upon the question whether, being unguarded, it endangered the travel or not; if it did not, no matter how near it was to the line of way; if it did, no matter how far it was removed.' "
In Prather v. Spokane, 29 Wash. 549, 70 P. 55, 59 L. R. A. 346, 92 Am. St. Rep. 923, plaintiff, riding a bicycle at night along a cinder bicycle path maintained by the city, missed a turn in the path and was injured by striking a near-by unguarded curb, gutter and sidewalk. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed.
Oklahoma City v. Meyers, 4 Okla. 686, 690, 696, 46 P. 552, 554, 555, held the court properly refused to give au instruction that if the excavation was found to be from four to eight feet from the line of the street, and that a pedestrian would not, by reason of the surface of the ground, fall into such excavation unless he first left the street, then if plaintiff left the street and fell into such excavation, the city would not be liable. The court stated: "This instruction would preclude a recovery in the case, unless the excavation lies so close to the street that a person passing along the sidewalk would fall from the street into the excavation without passing over any intermediate ground. # As to how close to the street the excavation must be in order to allow recovery would, in most cases, be a question for the jury."
In City of Beaumont v. Kane, Tex. Civ. App., 33 S.W.2d 234, 236, recovery was allowed plaintiff who drove his automobile down Pearl Street, across Austin Street, upon the approach to the city wharf and across the wharf into a river. The night was dark and rainy and there were no lights nor guards. Pearl Street and Austin Street were paved. "From the south line of the intersection of Austin Street to the edge of the wharf is about 135 feet. About 65 feet of this distance from Pearl Street is covered with shell, and the balance of the way to the edge of the wharf with plank." A witness testified: "Unless you would call the rough surface of that shell an obstruction, there is not any obstruction between the end of the street and the docks, or was not at that time, such as rails or guards, and so forth.".
The rule that it is the duty of a municipality to erect barriers to protect travelers from dangerous structures or excavations outside the highway is especially applicable where, as here, such structures or excavations are in the general direction or course of travel upon the highway. 25 Am. Jur. 816, Highways, section 532. Thus in Manderschid v. Dubuque, supra, 29 Iowa 73, 4 Am. Rep. 196, the dangerous structure was a quarter of a mile from the city street. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. State, 146 Md. 440, 126 A. 130, involved a declivity about twenty-eight feet from the traveled way. In Lawrence v. Sioux City, supra, 172 Iowa 320, 154 N.W.494, the turn in the way was about thirty feet from the gully. In City of Beaumont v. Kane, supra, Tex. Civ. App., 33 S.W.2d 234, the danger was one hundred thirty-five feet distant. In Fort Worth v. Lee, 143 Tex. 551, 186 S.W.2d 954, 159 A. L. R. 125, it was fifty-five feet. In most of these eases, as in the ease at bar, conditions were such as would be likely to deceive a traveler as to the limits of the traveled way and the dangerous defect.
Weiser v. St. Paul, 86 Minn. 26, 29, 30, 90 N.W. 8, 9, 10, is such a case. There, a street sixty feet wide narrowed to a fill about twenty-five feet wide as it crossed a ravine. The pedestrians' approach from the west was a pathway ninety-five feet long which connected with a sidewalk along the nor!h part of the street and turned slightly to the south to reach the fill. In the darkness plaintiff failed to make the turn and instead turned to the left along a culvert, "traveling on in the same general direction of the street, until he came to the edge of the fill, where, the culvert turning abruptly, he stepped off, and was precipitated into the ravine . A person going sorith along this path would approach the culvert at an angle, so that, if he were to follow it, he would turn slightly to the left; if he kept on directly to the front, he would cross the culvert, and walk into the ravine between the culvert and the fill. it was for the jury to decide whether or not the city had maintained the place in a reasonably safe condition ."
The recent case of Mix v. Minneapolis, 219 Minn. 389, 18 N.W.2d 130, 134, 135, where the defect was eighty-five feet outside the city limits, contains a good discussion of the rule here applicable. It approves the Weiser ease and cites various authorities, some of which are cited herein. Among other decisions are: Johnson v. State, 186 App. Div. 389, 173 N. Y. S. 701, aff. 227 N. Y. 610, 125 N.E. 919; Ross v. State, 265 N. Y. 632, 193 N.E. 420; Miller v. Duluth, 134 Minn. 418, 159 N.W. 960, 961.
There was no evidence decedent intentionally left the cinder path. On this point Drew v. Town of Sutton, 55 Vt. 586, 590, 45 Am. Rep. 644, 645, states: "This is in no just sense a case of voluntary departure nor of straying from the way, like many of the cases relied upon by the defendant, and the law of those cases is not applicable." Nor was there any evidence decedent was a trespasser. Apparently he did not leave the prop erty of the city and it does not appear he went outside the line of the highway. Decisions which involve travelers "straying from the highway" are not factually in point. The record would support a finding decedent walking east along the cinder path in the darkness, merely missed the turn and continued to walk east within the boundaries of the highway.
Chicago v. Gallagher, 44 Ill. 295, 296, 297, is factually similar to the case at bar. It was an action for wrongful death in Ogden's slip, at one of the street crossings in the city.
"It appears that the slip was crossed by a bridge, which was much narrower than the street. The sidewalk on each side of the street ran to near the slip and then curved, so as to pass on the bridge, so that, in approaching, a person failing to follow the curve would, by pursuing a direct line, walk into the slip. There was no railing, wall or guard on the outer edge of this curved sidewalk leading to the bridge. Hence, a person proceeding straight forward would meet with no obstruction to being precipitated into the slip. This was certainly extremely dangerous to persons passing in the dark. Persons would be liable to be precipitated into this slip, filled with mire and water, which under any circumstances would be dangerous to life, and extremely so in the dark # * Decedent was last seen walking toward the bridge and later his body was found in the slip behind the unguarded curve in the approach.
". Having permitted the excavation to be made, it was the manifest duty of the city to have made it secure, and fully protected the public against such hazards, by erecting railings, guard or barriers, suitable and sufficient to protect persons from walking into the slip, under any circumstances, in passing."
One difference between the cited case and the case at bar is that there the city furnished a sidewalk, here merely a cinder path with a somewhat irregular surface upon which a light snow had fallen, so that conditions underfoot here would probably be more deceiving to the traveler.
In Bennett v. Kings County, 124 Cal. App. 147, 150, 12 P.2d 47, 48, the center line of the bridge made an angle of thirty-five degrees with the center line of the traveled portion of the road, so that a person traveling down the center of the road would run into the slongh, unless he made a sharp turn to enter the bridge. There were no guardrails either upon the bridge or its approaches. Bennett left the home of a relative in the darkness and a dense fog. His body was found in the slough in his overturned automobile. "The tracks made by the machine were visible and showed that it had come along the center of the road and that instead of making the sharp turn onto the bridge, it had gone straight ahead into the slough. The wheels of the car nearest the bridge had either just touched or just missed the corner of the bridge.
The reason given by the distinguished trial court for directing the verdict in favor of the City was that the record showed (as a matter of law) the pit was not in such close proximity to the cinder walk as to require the City to guard it. With this we are unable to agree. The precise question at this point, we believe, was not the distance between the cinder path and the pit, but whether the pit endangered travel along the cinder path. Under the record in this case that was not a question of law for the court. The deep pit, with its precipitous sides, was within the street line and would be in the direct line of travel of one walking east, who failed to make the turn in the cinder path and proceeded ahead in the same direction, and would be only a few steps distant. The safety of one who could not see the cinder path or pit in the darkness would be more imperiled. These and other circumstances shown in the record would warrant a finding of fact that travelers along the cinder path were endangered by the pit. Hence, the issue of the alleged negligence of the City in failing to properly guard the pit was one of fact for the jury and the order directing the verdict was erroneous.
II. The City contends plaintiff failed to establish any causal connection between the negligence charged and decedent's fatal injury, and that it was entitled to a directed verdict on that ground. With this contention we do not agree. As to what took place at and immediately prior to the time decedent suffered his fatal injury the evidence is circumstantial. The City points to evidence he was intoxicated. Plaintiff's evidence indicates decedent arrived at the bus terminal at eleven-thirty p.m. apparently en route to his home from downtown Des Moines. . It was his custom to take the most direct route from the bus terminal to his home. This was along the Easton Boulevard sidewalk and cinder path to and across the bridge. His body was discovered in the unguarded pit adjacent to the cinder path. The nature of his injuries and an indentation in the bottom of the pit beside his cap, as though made by a human head, would warrant the inference his death resulted from a headlong fall into the pit.
Plaintiff was not required to prove her theory of causation by evidence so clear as to exclude every other possible theory. The evidence need be only such as to make that theory reasonably probable, not merely possible, and more probable than any other hypothesis based on such evidence. McGee v. Jones County, 161 Iowa 296, 299, 300, 142 N.W. 957, 48 L. R. A., N. S., 141; Rodefer v. Turner, 232 Iowa 691, 6 N.W.2d 17; Lunde v. Cudahy Packing Co., 139 Iowa 688, 117 N.W. 1063; Central Natl. Bk. & Tr. Co. v. Lederer Strauss & Co., 236 Iowa 16, 17 N.W.2d 817; Hayes v. Stunkard, 233 Iowa 582, 10 N.W.2d 19.
In Chicago v. Gallagher, 44 Ill. 295, 297, supra, the court disposed of this phase of that case in the following language: "* # * the jury were warranted in finding that deceased came to his death from the want of necessary and proper protections at this bridge. He was undeniably drowned at that place, and when-last seen he was at a short distance from the bridge, and when he left Mr. Denny's he seems to have proceeded in the direction of the bridge. It is but reasonable, then, to suppose that it was on that occasion that he fell into this pool and was there drowned. All of the circumstances tend to this conclusion, and we are not disposed to disturb the finding of the jury."
So in the case at bar, although there may be some circumstances not in accord therewith, the evidence would justify a finding decedent fell into the pit while attempting to traverse the cinder path, on-his way to his home, and that the proximate cause of his fall and death was the negligence of the City in failing to guard the pit. Hence, the question of proximate cause was one of fact for the jury.
For the error in directing the verdict for defendant as determined in Division I hereof the judgment is reversed. — Reversed.
Bliss, Garfield, Mulroney, Thompson, and Larson, JJ., concur.
Wennerstrum, J., and Hays, C. J., and Smith, J., dissent.