Johnson v. City of Albia
Iowa Supreme Court
212 N.W. 419 (1927)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
The City of Albia, Iowa (defendant) employed Gust Johnson (plaintiff) as the engineer in charge of the city’s pumping plant. On November 15, 1923, Johnson told the city’s waterworks committee that he would be quitting his job that night, and the committee hired a new engineer to take Johnson’s place. Johnson left work at 7:15 p.m. on November 15 and surrendered his key to the plant. However, Johnson left a cow, a portable garage and car, and his personal tools on premises owned by the city. Unbeknownst to the city, Johnson returned to the plant at 8:00 a.m. the following morning to retrieve his tools and start making preparations to remove the rest of his personal property. At the plant, Johnson found that the new engineer could not start one of the pumps due to a defective valve. The new engineer asked Johnson for help, but when Johnson tried to help the new engineer start the pump, Johnson became caught in the machinery and lost his left arm. Johnson brought an action for workers’-compensation benefits, and the industrial commissioner awarded benefits after finding that Johnson was a covered employee. The city appealed to a trial court, which affirmed the industrial commissioner’s award. The city then appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Faville, J.)
Dissent (Evans, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.