Opinion ID: 1242839
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiff's evidence as abstracted includes also:

Text: The color of the ice was dark and it wasn't too clean. It had been there. The height and depth of the ice I would roughly say that it would have to be at least two or three inches or possibly more. It was hard ice. People had crossed there, and the melting of snow, and people walking in it or footprints and that caused impressions. There was, in fact, ice over ice. Following this testimony plaintiff on direct examination was asked, Well, did you observe anything else about it that helped you determine how long the ice had been there? She answered, The only way that it was quite thick, that it wouldn't accumulate over just a day or so, that it had beenhad to be over a period of a week or so. Defense counsel objected, for the reason there is no foundation, the witness is not competent. The court sustained the objection. The correctness of that ruling need not be considered as no motion was made to strike the answer. We have repeatedly held that where a question is answered before the objection was sustained in the absence of a stated reason for delay and a motion to strike the answer it remains in the record and is to be considered. State ex rel. Fulton v. Scheetz, Iowa, 166 N.W.2d 874, 882, 34 A.L.R.3d 617; Crane v. Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railway Co., Iowa, 160 N. W.2d 838, 846; Correll v. Goodfellow, 255 Iowa 1237, 1247, 125 N.W.2d 745, 751 and citations. Based on a finding of entire lack of evidence of constructive notice to the city, the trial court found against plaintiff and dismissed her petitions. The trial court's findings and conclusions include: Assuming, without deciding, that plaintiff fell on rough or uneven ice and that such condition was dangerous where is the evidence in the case that the city, in the exercise of reasonable care knew or should have known about it and remedied it? There was some testimony that the ice and snow was dirty. A dirty condition can be due to many causes. No one came to court to testify that the rough ice and snow, if it were such, had been there for any appreciable period of time. It is clear the trial court failed to consider the plaintiff's answer, supra, which had not been stricken. Reversible error thereby resulted. It should have been considered with all the evidence, some of which sharply disagreed with plaintiff's testimony and that of her witnesses. III. Plaintiff next asserts and argues, the trial court erred in not finding for the plaintiff in the amount of $15,000 for damages, the sum which the trial court found the plaintiff was entitled to if there was liability on the part of the defendant. After finding lack of any evidence of constructive notice and stating it was not necessary to consider defendant's pleaded affirmative defenses, including contributory negligence, the trial court did find plaintiff had been damaged in the amount of $15,000. It does not follow plaintiff on reversal is entitled to judgment for that amount. The lower court judgment is reversed and this case is remanded for new trial. Reversed and remanded for new trial.