Opinion ID: 2022270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Errors relied upon for reversal by defendants are:

Text: 1. The Court erred in overruling ground three of their motions for a directed verdict, which ground was: `That there is lacking any evidence upon which a jury could base a finding that plaintiff's decedent was free from any contributory negligence.' 2. The Court erred in submitting the case to the jury under the no eyewitness rule, in that: (a) Plaintiff failed to show that there was no obtainable direct evidence. (b) The direct evidence affirmatively shows that plaintiff's decedent was guilty of contributory negligence. (c) The principal facts affirmatively show that plaintiff's decedent was guilty of contributory negligence. Appellants state the issues before this Court thus: The issues of the case were whether the plaintiff's decedent was free from contributory negligence in the accident causing his death; whether or not the Court should have permitted the case to go to the jury over defendants' motion for a directed verdict. The contention of the appellee is: The sole question presented on this appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence to present a jury question on plaintiff's (decedent's) freedom from contributory negligence. It is our conclusion that the decisive issues in the case were the contributory negligence of decedent, and whether the determination of that issue was for the jury. There were no exceptions to the instructions, nor to the failure to give requested instructions. The instructions fairly stated the applicable law of the case including that pertaining to the no eyewitness rule, and whether there was an eyewitness. The important issue, and the one before us for determination is whether the finding and verdict of the jury that the decedent did not negligently contribute to his injury and death was properly sustained by the record. From this record, as we read it, the jury could properly have found the facts hereinafter stated, in addition to those already noted. The plat Exhibit A shows the graveled portion of the highway was 28 feet wide at the place of collision, and elsewhere so far as pertinent, and that appellant's car was stopped approximately astride the middle line of this portion directly east of the Schiltz house, and about at the crest of the hill. As shown by the plat, the road sloped from its crest south to a point about 300 feet distant where the elevation was approximately ten feet and eight inches lower than at the crest, and might have been the blind spot, or low place, testified to by some of the witnesses, where for a distance of about 100 feet there was obstructed vision along the road to the north, so that until decedent reached a point 180 feet south of the place of collision he did not see appellant's truck. And when he saw it at a place where he did not reasonably expect it to be, and was not sure of the clearance for passing it, he was confronted with an emergency which may have disconcerted him, and interfered with his operation of his car. On discovering appellant's truck he immediately proceeded to so operate his car as to avoid a collision by reducing its speed of from 65 to 70 miles an hour and succeeded in reaching a speed of 40 miles an hour. He then attempted to pass to the left of appellant's truck and almost succeeded since the contact between the two vehicles was insufficient to change the position of the truck or to jolt appellant. The testimony of appellant that, if the pick-up truck had been 20 feet further north the car of decedent possibly could have passed me, as an admission that there was not clearance at the place of impact. There are several matters that influence this Court in its conclusion not to interfere with the verdict of the jury and the judgment. There are numerous conflicts in the testimony. A number of witnesses had various relationships with the litigants and because thereof may have had an interest in the outcome of the action. The able trial Court saw and heard the witnesses, and denied defendants' motions. The jurors observed the witnesses and heard them testify and returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The trial Court and jury were better situated than is this Court to determine the probative value of the testimony. The jury viewed the surroundings where the collision took place. We find no errors in the record which justify our disturbance of the judgment. The facts are determinative of this appeal. It would serve no purpose to cite numerous authorities in support of our ruling, as there is no controversy respecting the holdings of this Court, that the issue of freedom from contributory negligence is ordinarily for the determination of the jury. Weilbrenner v. Owens, 246 Iowa 580, 68 N.W.2d 293; Leinen v. Boettger, 241 Iowa 910, 926, 44 N.W.2d 73; Pierce v. Dencker, 229 Iowa 479, 484, 294 N.W. 781; Thompson v. Waterloo, C. F. & N. R. Co., 243 Iowa 73, 78-79, 50 N.W.2d 363; Huffman v. King, 222 Iowa 150, 154, 268 N.W. 144; Fitter v. Iowa Telephone Co., 143 Iowa 689, 693, 121 N. W. 48. The judgment is Affirmed. GARFIELD, HAYS, PETERSON, SMITH, and WENNERSTRUM, JJ., concur.