Manuel v. C., R. I. & P. R. Co.
Decision Date | 20 October 1881 |
Citation | 56 Iowa 655,10 N.W. 237 |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Parties | MANUEL v. C., R. I. & P. R. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Appanoose circuit court.
The plaintiff was an employe of the defendant, working on a construction train, and alleged in his petition while so engaged his co-employes carelessly and negligently “let fall on the left foot of plaintiff a heavy iron rail,” whereby he was greatly injured. In an amendment to the petition it is stated “that the two co-employes who let said iron rail fall carelessly and negligently on the foot of plaintiff were Swedes or some foreign nationality.” There was a denial of the allegations aforesaid and trial by jury, verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.Vermillion & Vermillion, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
The evidence tended to show the plaintiff and other employes of the defendant, at the time the accident occurred, were engaged in loading certain cars with old iron rails and bridge timbers. It became necessary to move some of the timbers after they had been loaded on a car; and the plaintiff testified while so engaged two of his co-employes raised, with crow-bars, an iron rail, which they carelessly let fall on his foot. The evidence on the part of the defendant tended to show the rail was not raised with crow-bars, and did not fall on defendant's foot because of the negligence of the defendant's employes.
The court stated the issues correctly to the jury, and, in substance, instructed them the plaintiff could recover if the injury was caused by the negligence of the defendant's employes, and the plaintiff had not been guilty of contributory negligence; but did not instruct the jury that before the plaintiff could recover he must have established, to their satisfaction, the injury had been caused in the manner alleged in the petition. The defendant asked the court to instruct the jury as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hooker v. Schuler
... ... Bruce ... R. Kester and Ed. R. Coulter, for Appellant ... Plaintiff ... must recover, if at all, upon the negligence proved. (20 R ... C. L., pp. 176, 177, sec. 142; Hall v. Northern Pacific ... R. Co., 16 N.D. 60, 14 Ann. Cas. 960, 111 N.W. 609; ... Manuel v. Chicago R. I. & P. R. Co., 56 Iowa 655, 10 ... N.W. 237.) ... Where ... the record shows that plaintiff was violating the law of the ... road, and that such violation was the proximate cause of her ... injury, she is not entitled to recover. (Cupples ... Mercantile Co. v. Bow, 32 ... ...
-
Atchison v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co.
...v. Railroad Co., 74 Mo. 369; Marquette, etc., R. R. Co. v. Marcott, 41 Mich. 433; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Lee, 68 Ill. 576; Manuel v. Railroad Co., 56 Iowa 655; Field v. Railroad Co., 76 Mo. 614. T. J. Porter and Roland Hughes for respondent. SHERWOOD, J. The petition in this cause was the ......
- Manuel v. The Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co.