23 N.W. 260 (Iowa 1885), Henry v. Sioux City & Pacific Railway Co.
|Citation:||23 N.W. 260, 66 Iowa 52|
|Opinion Judge:||ROTHROCK, J.|
|Party Name:||HENRY, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, v. THE SIOUX CITY & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY|
|Attorney:||Joy, Wright & Hudson, for appellant. E. F. Gray and E. C. Herrick, for appellee.|
|Case Date:||April 23, 1885|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Iowa|
Appeal from Cherokee District Court.
THIS is an action for damages for personal injury received by the plaintiff while engaged as a brakeman in coupling cars upon defendant's road. There was a trial by jury, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
The plaintiff was engaged as a brake man upon defendant's road upon the run from Missouri Valley [66 Iowa 53] to the Missouri river. The train-men on that run consisted of a conductor, engineer, fireman, and one brakeman. On the twenty-second day of May, 1882, the run was being made from the river to Missouri Valley with a train of about thirty freight cars. When the train arrived at California Junction, a station on the line, orders were received to leave two empty stock cars at that station. Some switching was necessary to set out the stock cars and put them in the proper position on the side track. Some cars were already standing on the side track, and they were moved. When the cars had been properly shifted on the tracks, there were
five cars attached to the engine, which were "kicked" or thrown back upon the side track. After they were thrown off from the engine, and while they were in motion, the plaintiff climbed upon the last car of the five, and ran along the top of the cars, and descended the ladder by the forward car, and alighted upon the ground when it was within a car and a half or two car lengths from the car standing on the side track, and ran forward and made the coupling. The cars came together with such force that plaintiff was thrown down, and one of his ankles was seriously injured by one of the car-wheels.
The plaintiff claimed in his petition that he received the injury by reason of the negligence of the defendant, its agents and servants, and without any negligence on his part. The negligence complained of in the petition was--First, failure to employ an adequate number of brakeman on the train to operate the same with safety; second, in the employment of an incompetent engineer; third, in the conductor's ordering plaintiff to...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP