Legal Opinion
Munger v. City of Marshalltown
Supreme Court of Iowa
Decided June 10, 1881PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Ajopsal from Marshall Oi/rouit Gov/rt. , . The plaintiff claims to have been injured by reason of a' defective sidewalk, and this action was brought to recover damages therefor. Trial by jury, verdict and judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtSeeyers, J.
i. mbghis contributo■sidewalk. It was a material question in the trial of this action whether the plaintiff had been negligent, and therefore could not recover. The court on this branch of the case instructed the jury as follows:
“5. The plaintiff would be justified in relying upon the presumption that the defendant had done its duty in repairing any injury, if a reasonable time after the injury to ■ the walk had elapsed before her use of it, and if she knew or ought to have known of the injury to the walk, she would be justified in using it, exercising such care, however, as seems reasonable.…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Bender v. Incorporated Town of MindenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- McKinnon v. ParrillIndiana Court of Appeals · 1942
- Davis v. City of DubuqueSupreme Court of Iowa · 1930
- Buchholtz v. Incorporated of RadcliffeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- Sweeney v. SweeneySupreme Court of Vermont · 1922