Court Opinion

ID: 9688626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:58:49.992888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:40.716956
License: Public Domain

Wennerstrum, J.
(dissenting) — I am unable to agree with the conclusions reached in the majority opinion and respectfully dissent.
Despite the extensive review of the evidence in that opinion there are some facts therein referred to that justify further comment .and, in my opinion, merit an entirely different conclusion than the one reached by the trial court and the majority. These facts, and the absence of other evidence, necessitate, in my opinion, a ruling by this court that there is no basis for the trial court’s findings of fact as a matter of law.
It should be kept in mind that it was pleaded by the plaintiffs the leak in the defective joint permitted water “* * * to flow in, about, and against the foundation of the building of the plaintiffs * * *” and “* * * the action of the water undermined the west wall of the building, causing it to sink, the floors to *197sag and the walls to crack” and further that “* * * said negligence was the proximate cause of the injury and damage sustained by the plaintiffs. * *
Now let us examine the claimed injuries, when they occurred and see whether the evidence presented in any manner supports the allegation made in the plaintiffs’ petition.
William J. Dougherty, one of the plaintiffs, testified in his original examination: “I personally observed the condition of the west foundation wall in the building from the fall of 1948 to the present day. There were cracks and openings in this wall and it was bulging out. I did not observe any sinking in the north or south or east wall.” On cross-examination he testified: “I suppose we first started to notice the settling in the floor in 1948. * * George M. Dougherty, another of the plaintiffs, testified, in part: “The cracks in Exhibit 4 appeared in 1948. The settling started to show up in the fall of 1948. The piers started to show damage in 1948 by settling. The settling in the first and second floors also started to show up then. The basement floor began to sink at that time.. Chris Hansen put the clamps on the building in 1948. That was the only work done in 1948. * * * There are small cracks in the north, east and south walls, but I wouldn’t be .able to say how many years they have been there. There hasn’t been any particular change in the walls other than normal condition would bring about in the passage of time.”
Nellie Dougherty, another of the plaintiffs, testified in part, on cross-examination: “Chris Hansen put some plates in the west wall in 1948 and tied the brick and wooden wall together by steel rods which went through the walls. I noticed the sinking in the foundation in 1949. The sinking was very noticeable. I first saw the cracks in the wall in the fall of 1948. * *
From the foregoing testimony of three of the four plaintiffs (one being ill and unable to come to court) we must determine whether there was any causal connection between the claimed damage to plaintiffs’ building and the alleged negligence of the city by reason of the claimed defective joint. Admitting that in July 1949 a defective joint in the water main was shown, yet before plaintiffs would be able to recover there should be some showing of causal connection between the leaking joint and es*198caping water and the cracked wall, the sinking of the west wall, and the sag of the floors.
I am unable to find in the record any evidence that water from the broken joint came into the building on or .about July 4, 1949, or at any earlier time. It is true that as a result of the leak in the joint in the main, water came up through the pavement of the street on the west side of the building on July 5, 1949. It is also true water came into the building from some place early in July 1949 but there is no connection shown between this condition and the defective joint. It may be admitted there was water observed near the sewer pipe which was discovered to be broken in January 1950. However, this does not necessarily indicate that the water observed either in December 1949 or January 1950 near this sewer pipe developed as the result of the defective joint in the water main which was repaired on July 5, 1949. It is more logical to believe that the water observed about the broken sewer pipe was the result of that condition, rather than from water seeping from the defective joint. In the majority opinion it is stated: “Mr. Schoen testified that escaping water from a leak in a water main percolates in the area of least resistance, which is along the line of the new ground made in refilling the trenches after the pipe lines were laid. It would thus escape north and south along the main west of the west foundation wall of plaintiffs’ building. The most accessible escape for the leaking waters was through the refilled earth in the trench of the six-inch ‘fire line’ passing under the west foundation wall and then under the basement floor,'and under ,and about the rock footings of the piers in that portion of the basement. There is also uncontradicted testimony that commencing about a year prior to July 4, 1949, on a number of occasions water was observed on the paving in Pearl Street at a sewer manhole near defendant’s water main. This manhole was a hundred feet, more or less, south of plaintiffs’ building. It was south of the defective joint. This water would appear on the pavement in dry weather when there had been no recent rain.”
If water from this defective joint was sufficient to cause it to be observed near a sewer manhole in Pearl Street one hundred feet south of the building it is logical to believe that there would have been sufficient water to flo-yy along the “fire line” and to *199disclose a great amount of water coming into the building .at an earlier time than it was observed in the street. We must remember it was not until July 4, 1949, that water was observed in the basement of the plaintiffs’ building and it was not until December 1949 or January 1950 that water was observed about a broken sewer pipe under the west wall.
Yet in the light of the facts previously stated the majority find justification to make the .following statement:
“But for probably a year prior to July 4, 1949, there was much evidence that water was escaping. * * * Its exact location was discovered on July 5, 1949, when the defective joint in the main was found. There was no direct evidence of the inception of that breach or of how gradually or precipitately it may have enlarged. But it furnished a definite source of water leakage that had been indirectly evidenced in various ways. No other source being shown in evidence for the surface water at the manhole, it is a fair assumption that escaping water in following the line of least resistance would percolate through the dirt refill in the main line trench from the defective joint to the manhole.
“With much greater certainty it may be inferred that it would percolate the much shorter distance from the main line down the refilled dirt in the trench for the six-inch fire line under the west foundation wall. It would take just as large a trench for a six-inch pipe as for an eight-inch pipe, and the slope of the six-inch trench from the main water main to below the foundation was definitely downgrade.
“* * * The basement floor and piers were repaired in the fall of 1951. George Dougherty testified that he heard the sound of escaping water four to six months prior to July 4, 1949, but the plumber who inspected their pipes for leaks could find none.”
It will be observed that the majority, from the indefinite facts shown, are able only to draw an inference. This is not sufficient. The majority state that there was sufficient water from some leak to force it up through the pavement and around a sewer manhole 100 feet from the later discovered defective joint. However, the majority is not able to find in the record that six *200months or a year before the defective joint was discovered water came into the building. And the distance to the building was only 25 or 30 feet from the later discovered defective joint, while the water that was observed in the street was at least 100 feet from the claimed defective joint.
Consequently I am unable to find any substantial facts whatsoever that justify a submission to the court, as a trier of facts, of the question of the causal connection between the defective joint and leaking water and the cracked walls, sagging floors and sinking walls.
I. The burden is upon the plaintiff to show causal connection between the negligence claimed and the injury, 65 C. J. S., Negligence, section 209, pages 970-972. It is true both negligence and proximate cause are fact questions for the usual determination of the jury, and in this ease the court, if the evidence is of sufficient weight and character to warrant their submission and consideration. Whetstine v. Moravec, 228 Iowa 352, 362, 291 N.W. 425. However, in order to hold a defendant liable for negligence, it must appear the negligence claimed had some causal connection and was the direct and proximate cause thereof. Albrecht v. Waterloo Constr. Co., 218 Iowa 1205, 1216, 257 N.W. 183; Hecht v. Des Moines Playground and Recreation Assn., 227 Iowa 81, 99, 287 N.W. 259; Harvey v. Knowles Storage & Moving Co., 215 Iowa 35, 41, 244 N.W. 660; Isaacs v. Bruce, 218 Iowa 759, 765; 254 N.W. 57. And it has. been the holding of this court that in matters of proof a litigant is not justified in inferring a fact as proven from the mere possibility of the existence of facts. Phillips v. Briggs, 215 Iowa 461, 465, 245 N.W. 720, and cases cited.
II. Where the evidence, as disclosed by the record, shows there is no support for the conclusions announced by the trial court in law actions tried to the court we should reverse. Miller v. Woolsey, 240 Iowa 450, 458, 459, 35 N.W.2d 584; Ida Grove Independent School Dist. v. Ida County, 226 Iowa 1237, 1241, 286 N.W. 407; Haldeman v. Addison, 221 Iowa 218, 227, 265 N.W. 358; First Presbyterian Church v. Dennis, 178 Iowa 1352, 1364, 161 N.W. 183, L. R. A. 1917C 1005.
III. Inasmuch as this is an appeal in a law action tried to the court without a jury the trial court’s decision on the facts *201must stand unless the defendant would have been entitled to a directed verdict as a matter of law if there had been a jury trial. Roth v. Headlee, 238 Iowa 1340, 1342, 29 N.W.2d 923. I am firmly convinced the trial court in this case should have dismissed plaintiffs’ action because of a complete failure to show that the claimed negligence of the defendant was the cause of plaintiffs’ claimed damages. If it can be held in this case that a fact question is presented by reason of the evidence disclosed there is no limitation whatsoever in the matter of submitting cases to the jury, or, as in this case, to the court for its determination of the facts. Apparently the majority desire to put no limitation on the submission of fact questions to a jury, or to a court, as a trier of the facts. I am not disposed to go to such an extreme and unhesitatingly express my disapproval of such a declaration of the law.
Where the evidence does not sustain the findings of the trial court we should not follow it. We so held in a unanimous decision in Swift v. Petersen, 240 Iowa 715, 721, 722, 37 N.W.2d 258, 261, where we stated:
“It is true, as argued by appellee, that since a jury was waived the findings of the court have the force of a verdict, but it does not follow that where the evidence does not sustain the findings we must accept them. Whether the trial be to the jury or to the court, without a jury, the correct doctrine is well stated in Anfenson v. Banks, supra, Justice Weaver speaking, where it is said at page 1119 of 180 Iowa, page 625 of 163 N.W.:
“ ‘The true rule in this, as in the trial of other jury issues, is that, at the close of all the testimony, if, to the judicial mind, the evidence, tested by the law of the issues and the rules of evidence, is not sufficient to justify a jury fairly and reasonably in finding a verdict for the plaintiff, the court should so direct the jury.’ Citing Pleasants v. Fant, 89 U. S. 116, 22 L. Ed. 780.”
This rule finds application in this case. I would reverse.
Hays, Thompson and Larson, JJ., join in this dissent.