Heims v. Hanke

Appellant contends that there was no evidence of actionable negligence on his part, that William’s negligence, if any, could not properly be imputed to defendant, that no nuisance was established, that plaintiffs negligence was the sole cause of the accident, and that the trial court erred in excluding certain evidence.

1. Defendant’s negligence. The finding that the icy condition of the sidewalk was caused by the negligence of the defendant is supported by sufficient evidence.

The court could properly find that William, the nephew, was negligent in spilling water on the sidewalk in…