arbitrary rule in Iowa

1939No such situation should be brought about by an arbitrary rule of immunity from liability, applicable only to one class of persons, unless deemed by the legislature necessary to the existence and life of charitable associations." The South Carolina court, in Peden v. Furman University, 1930, 155 S.C. 1 , 151 S.E. 907 , though recognizing the defendant to be within the class of eleemosynary and charitable institutions, held it was subject to injunction and damages from so using its athletic field, as to become a nuisance, and injury to plaintiff's property.

1939No such situation should be brought about by an arbitrary rule of immunity from liability, applicable only to one class of persons, unless deemed by the legislature necessary to the existence and life of charitable associations." The South Carolina court, in Peden v. Furman University, 1930, 155 S.C. 1 , 151 S.E. 907 , though recognizing the defendant to be within the class of eleemosynary and charitable institutions, held it was subject to injunction and damages from so using its athletic field, as to become a nuisance, and injury to plaintiff's property.

1939In Hewett v. Woman's Hospital Aid Association, 1906, 73 N.H. 556 , 64 A. 190 , 7 L.R.A.

1939In Hewett v. Woman's Hospital Aid Association, 1906, 73 N.H. 556 , 64 A. 190 , 7 L.R.A.

1971Cogley Clinic v. Martini, supra (doctor was prevented from practicing anywhere in the Council Bluffs-Omaha area) ; Brecher v. Brown, supra (veterinary was permitted to practice within 100 feet of his former employer) ; Larsen v. Burroughs, supra (doctor prohibited from practicing in area for 10 years); Beit v. Beit (1948), 135 Conn. 195 , 135 Conn. 413 , 63 A.2d 161 , 65 A.2d 171 , 10 A.L.R.2d 734 (note in 23 Conn.Bar Jour. 40); see discussion in Solari Industries, Inc. v. Malady, supra, 264 A.2d at 60 .

1971Cogley Clinic v. Martini, supra (doctor was prevented from practicing anywhere in the Council Bluffs-Omaha area) ; Brecher v. Brown, supra (veterinary was permitted to practice within 100 feet of his former employer) ; Larsen v. Burroughs, supra (doctor prohibited from practicing in area for 10 years); Beit v. Beit (1948), 135 Conn. 195 , 135 Conn. 413 , 63 A.2d 161 , 65 A.2d 171 , 10 A.L.R.2d 734 (note in 23 Conn.Bar Jour. 40); see discussion in Solari Industries, Inc. v. Malady, supra, 264 A.2d at 60 .

1971Cogley Clinic v. Martini, supra (doctor was prevented from practicing anywhere in the Council Bluffs-Omaha area) ; Brecher v. Brown, supra (veterinary was permitted to practice within 100 feet of his former employer) ; Larsen v. Burroughs, supra (doctor prohibited from practicing in area for 10 years); Beit v. Beit (1948), 135 Conn. 195 , 135 Conn. 413 , 63 A.2d 161 , 65 A.2d 171 , 10 A.L.R.2d 734 (note in 23 Conn.Bar Jour. 40); see discussion in Solari Industries, Inc. v. Malady, supra, 264 A.2d at 60 .

1971Cogley Clinic v. Martini, supra (doctor was prevented from practicing anywhere in the Council Bluffs-Omaha area) ; Brecher v. Brown, supra (veterinary was permitted to practice within 100 feet of his former employer) ; Larsen v. Burroughs, supra (doctor prohibited from practicing in area for 10 years); Beit v. Beit (1948), 135 Conn. 195 , 135 Conn. 413 , 63 A.2d 161 , 65 A.2d 171 , 10 A.L.R.2d 734 (note in 23 Conn.Bar Jour. 40); see discussion in Solari Industries, Inc. v. Malady, supra, 264 A.2d at 60 .

1956Maki v. Murray Hospital, supra. We also agree with the California court in the Ybarra case, supra, when it said: “If this were the state of the law of negligence, the courts, to avoid gross injustice, would be forced to invoke the principles of absolute liability, irrespective of negligence, in actions by persons suffering injuries during the course of treatment under anesthesia.” We conclude as did Judge Lehman in Galbraith v. Busch, 267 N. Y. 230 -234, 196 N. E. 36 -38, that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not an arbitrary rule.

1956Maki v. Murray Hospital, supra. We also agree with the California court in the Ybarra case, supra, when it said: “If this were the state of the law of negligence, the courts, to avoid gross injustice, would be forced to invoke the principles of absolute liability, irrespective of negligence, in actions by persons suffering injuries during the course of treatment under anesthesia.” We conclude as did Judge Lehman in Galbraith v. Busch, 267 N. Y. 230 -234, 196 N. E. 36 -38, that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not an arbitrary rule.

1945On this latter theme this court stated, in the recent case of In re Estate of Price, 230 Iowa 1228, 1236 , 300 N. W. 542, 546 , as follows: “There are those who are prone to criticize the courts for making what they condemn as unreasonable and harsh decisions which can be explained only by a strict interpretation of an arbitrary rule of procedure.

1945On this latter theme this court stated, in the recent case of In re Estate of Price, 230 Iowa 1228, 1236 , 300 N. W. 542, 546 , as follows: “There are those who are prone to criticize the courts for making what they condemn as unreasonable and harsh decisions which can be explained only by a strict interpretation of an arbitrary rule of procedure.

1945This is illustrated *633 by the case of Engleken v. Schultz, 40 Iowa 703 , wherein this court stated: “On the 20th day of April, 1875, it being at the April Term at Dubuque, the judgments in these cases were affirmed on motion of the appellee, there being no transcripts filed, nor were the cases docketed by appellants, or any appearance for them.

1902“But the rule as applied to gas fixtures must be regarded as rather an arbitrary exception to the general rule, and should not be extended.” The case of Philadelphia Mortg. & Trust Co. v. Miller, 20 Wash. 607 ( 56 Pac.

1902“But the rule as applied to gas fixtures must be regarded as rather an arbitrary exception to the general rule, and should not be extended.” The case of Philadelphia Mortg. & Trust Co. v. Miller, 20 Wash. 607 ( 56 Pac.