Court Opinion

ID: 9693501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:45:19.06875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:47.669779
License: Public Domain

Mulroney, J.
(specially concurring) — I concur in all but *204Division III of the foregoing opinion. In that division of the opinion some doubt is cast on the sufficiency of the objection to the instructions made by plaintiff.
The record shows the defendants and eounterclaimants made the following objections to the instructions:
“Comes now the defendants and each of them and the counterclaimants and each of them and object to the Court’s failure to include in the statement of the issues counterclaimants’ specification of negligence 7c reading as follows: ‘In failing to keep control of their equipment under the conditions then and there existing, including the condition of the highway at the point of meeting.’
“(2) The counterclaimants and each of them object to the Court’s failure to include in the issues counterclaimants’ allegation of negligence 7d reading as follows: ‘In failing to keep a proper lookout at or about the time of meeting on said highway in view of the conditions then and there existing.’ ”
Rule 196, R.C.P., provides in part: “* * * all objections to giving or failing to give any instruction must be made in writing or dictated into the record, out of the jury’s presence, specifying the matter objected to and on what grounds.”
It seems to me the objection made is substantial compliance with our rule. It specifies the portion of the instructions objected to as the “statement of the issues”, an unnumbered part of the instructions in this case. It objects to this portion on the ground that it fails to include certain pleaded specifications of negligence, which are set forth in the objections. I think it specifies “the matter objected to”: the submission of issues, and “on what grounds”: because it fails to include pleaded specifications. The majority opinion does not. say what more should be added but about all I can think the objector could add would be a statement that there was evidential support for these specifications. Such a statement would add nothing by way of pinpointing the exact grounds for it is obvious that is all that could be urged when the court fails to include a pleaded specification. I cannot believe the majority means to infer the objection, which counsel must make under some pressure after he receives the preliminary *205draft, must detail the evidence which he contends would warrant the submission of the issues.
In Dakovich v. City of Des Moines, 241 Iowa 703, 710, 42 N.W.2d 511, 515, we held an exception to omission of a speed instruction sufficient. About all that was added to the exception in that case, that is not present in the exception here, is a general statement to the effect that the “physical facts as disclosed by the evidence” warranted such submission.
The cases where there is a requested instruction with no grounds urged are not in point. Dakovich v. City of Des Moines, supra. Here, there were specific objections directed to certain “matter”, namely, the statement of issues. I think it would be too technical to hold the grounds stated were insufficient.