# Mann v. Des Moines Railway Co.

> Supreme Court of Iowa · December 15, 1942 · 232 Iowa 1049

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3432321

## Case

- **Full name:** Marion Mann, Appellee, v. Des Moines Railway Company, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Iowa
- **Decided:** December 15, 1942
- **Citations:** 232 Iowa 1049; 7 N.W.2d 45
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Miller
- **Judges:** Bliss, Wennerstbum, Mitoiiell, Stiger, Oliver, Hale, Garfield, Miller
- **Cited by:** 30 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3432321

## Opinion text

Miller, J.
(specially concurring) — I agree with the result reached by the majority opinion herein and the decisions made on those propositions which appear to be essential to a determination of the case, but I doubt the advisability of including a substantial portion of the discussion set forth in such opinion. In division I, quite a number of authorities are cited and discussed for the purpose of determining the duty owed to a trespasser. The opinion then states, “The record here clearly establishes that the appellee was not a trespasser.” While the discussion relative to whether the appellee was a trespasser appears proper, a discussion of the duties owed to a trespasser is dictum and unnecessary to a decision of the case. In division II, the opinion discusses the duties owed to a bare licensee and states, “The record clearly establishes that the appellee was not a bare licensee.” Such holding renders a large portion of division II dicta and unnecessary to a decision of the case. In division
*1076
III, it is held that appellee ivas a licensee by implied invitation. Considerable discussion is had with regard to the duties owed such a licensee. I think there is a distinction in such cases regarding the duties owed by a railroad company to such a licensee. This distinction arises because of the type of property comprising a railroad right of way and the use made of it. Much that can be and has been said regarding duties of railroad employees to give warning and maintain a lookout for such licensees upon a railroad right of way is not applicable to the. employees of other types of landowners. Accordingly, I think much of the discussion in division III is dictum and unnecessary to a decision herein.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3432321. Public record. Not legal advice.