Howard v. City of Waterloo

The defendant complains because of the overruling by the court of its motion for directed verdict, which was made at the close of plaintiff's evidence, and renewed at the close of all the evidence.

Only three propositions are presented for our determination. (1) Was the defect such as that the court could properly allow the jury to find negligence on the part of the defendant city? (2) Did the defendant city have constructive notice of said defect? (3) Was the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence, as a matter of law?

The defective walk was constructed of cement, and was in front of a…