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

Heading: Plaintiff's first assigned error asserts the court erred in refusing to allow her to testify how long the ice had been allowed to accumulate.

Text: Plaintiff testified in detail regarding her observations of the sidewalk surface where she fell. Her testimony as abstracted in the record includes: It was icy and there was snow along there. It had been there over a period of time. The snow plow had been through there after the recent snows we had previous to this in the earlier part of the month. The plows had gone by and cleared the street but portions of it had been plowed up on the sidewalk.    There was accumulation of ice there and it was quite rough where people had walked. There wasn't much of a choice, you either had to go across, there was a long, long distance there that was rough and deep where people had walked in it, deep impressions that had been long a length of time. I have lived in Iowa all my life and have had occasion to observe ice and snow in my experience that has stood or been there for some time in the area. Plaintiff's counsel then asked: First of all, from your experience, can you tell by observation if it is old ice or if it is new? Defense counsel objected for the reasons the witness is incompetent; no proper foundation; the question is too general and remote. The trial court sustained the objection. We believe the trial court's ruling was erroneous. The question did not really call for an opinion. At most it asked for a conclusion drawn from facts of common observation. Such testimony has been described as a short hand rendering of facts. As such it is admissible. Hamdorf v. Corrie, 251 Iowa 896, 906, 101 N.W.2d 836, 842; Waterloo Sav. Bk. v. Waterloo, C. F. & N. R. R., 244 Iowa 1364, 1374, 60 N.W.2d 572, 578, and citations. But for other matters in the record, considered infra, this erroneous ruling would not constitute reversible error such as to require a new trial.