Opinion ID: 1696386
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Plaintiffs' failure to reply to new matter in Jewell's answer.

Text: Jewell contends plaintiffs, in failing to file a reply, admitted Carroll's contributory negligence and a verdict should have been directed. Our present rule 73, Rules of Civil Procedure, requires a reply to new matter in an answer. Rule 102, R.C.P. provides, Every fact pleaded and not denied in a subsequent pleading as permitted by these rules shall be deemed admitted   . Here the affirmative allegations in the answer basically asserted Carroll and Mortvedt, in making the installation, failed to seek engineering advice, and were without knowledge, experience or training. Those facts, if true, would not be fatal to plaintiffs' case. Particularly relevant is the following from Theobald v. Weber, 259 Iowa 452, 456, 143 N.W.2d 418, 421 (1966): Too much is claimed for plaintiff's failure to reply.    At most, failure to reply amounts to an admission of the facts well pleaded in the answer, not of conclusions defendant seeks to draw therefrom, especially those which may not properly be drawn from the facts pleaded. Moreover where, as here, the facts stated in the petition contradict facts stated in the answer, the issues are drawn without necessity of a reply. In Re Marriage of Ried, 212 N.W.2d 391, 393 (Iowa 1973); Connell v. Hays, 255 Iowa 261, 271-72, 122 N.W.2d 341, 347 (1963); Federated Mut. Implement & H. Ins. Co. v. Erickson, 252 Iowa 1208, 1218, 110 N. W.2d 264, 270 (1961). We resolve this issue against Jewell.