Reed v. Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co.
| Citation | 10 N.W. 285,57 Iowa 23 |
| Parties | REED v. C., R. I. & P. R. Co |
| Decision Date | 22 October 1881 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
Appeal from Mahaska District Court.
ACTION to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while in the employment of defendant, by reason of the negligence of his co-employe. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
REVERSED.
M. E Cutts, for appellant.
John T Lacy, for appellee.
I.
Plaintiff was acting as a brakeman of a train operated upon defendant's railroad, and while endeavoring to couple the engine to a part of a train, one of his fingers was injured. He claims the injury was caused by the fireman's negligence, who was in charge of the engine, in moving it without a warning or signal to plaintiff.
It was shown that plaintiff was not employed by any of the officers of defendant and was only temporarily serving in the place of the regular brakeman, who, for some reason, was unable to be upon the train. But it appears that plaintiff was required to perform temporarily the services of the regular brakeman and did enter upon them with the knowledge and consent of the conductor, who was authorized, under the rules of defendant, in case of the disability of a brakeman, to supply his place by the temporary employment of a proper person.
II. Upon the trial the conductor was asked if he hired the plaintiff, and under what arrangements, between him and the conductor he was to work. Upon the objection of plaintiff the court held that the question was incompetent. The ruling is complained of as being erroneous. Without determining as to the materiality or competency of the evidence sought to be elicited, we are of the opinion that the error in the ruling, if there be any, was cured by the testimony of the conductor, immediately given, to the effect that plaintiff did no work by reason of any arrangement between plaintiff and witness. This testimony went to the jury and it was just what defendant sought to elicit by the question held to be improper. The evidence desired was, therefore, before the jury, and defendant received its full benefit. No prejudice, therefore, resulted from the ruling under consideration.
III. The court gave numerous instructions applicable to the issues and facts developed upon the trial and refused a number asked for by defendant. We are inclined to think, but we do not so decide, that the instructions given with but one exception were correct, and that those refused ought not to...
To continue reading
Request your trial