Wesley v. Chi., St. P. & K. C. Ry. Co.
| Citation | 51 N.W. 163,84 Iowa 441 |
| Parties | WESLEY v. CHICAGO, ST. P. & K. C. RY. CO. |
| Decision Date | 30 January 1892 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Delaware county; D. J. LINEHAN, Judge.
Action to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been caused by negligence on the part of defendant. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff. The defendant appeals.Fouke & Lyon and Lusk & Bunn, for appellant.
Blair, Dunham & Norris, for appellee.
In September, 1888, defendant operated a railway in Delaware and Buchanan counties. At a point in the county last named, a short distance west of the Delaware county line, the railway crossed a highway at a place known as the “Sliter Crossing.” The general direction of the highway in the vicinity of the crossing was from east to west. The railway east of the crossing was south of the highway, and approached it on a line which curved northward, its direction at the crossing being north of west. The angle made by the railway with the highway from the crossing eastward was acute, and a wagon on the highway 50 feet east of the center of the crossing would be but 12 or 15 feet from the rails. On the 1st day of the month named, plaintiff approached the crossing from the east for the purpose of going to a point south-west of Lamont to put up hay. He was driving a team of horses attached to a wagon on which there was a hay-rack, and was sitting on the rack in such a manner that his face was turned to the north-west. His team went onto the crossing, but, before he could get beyond it, the wagon and horses were struck by the engine of a passenger train of defendant which approached from the east. One of the horses was killed, the other seriously hurt, the wagon and hay-rack were destroyed, and personal injuries were inflicted upon plaintiff. He seeks to recover compensation for the injuries he there received, and the loss of his property. The defendant is alleged to have been negligent in permitting its track to cross the highway at too acute an angle; in not constructing approaches of sufficient width; in having deep ditches at the sides of the approaches; and in running its train too rapidly, and approaching the crossing without proper signals at the time of the accident. The defendant denies the alleged negligence, and avers that the accident was due to negligence on the part of plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff testified, in effect, that he was driving slowly as he approached the crossing; that, when he was from 150 to 200 feet distant from it, he looked for the train, but did not see it; that when he was within 40 or 50 feet of the track, at the foot of the approach, he slackened the speed of his team, and again looked back and listened, but could neither see nor hear the train; and that he then attempted to cross, driving his team so as to go over the rails at as great an angle as possible to prevent the wheels from sliding on the rails, and that while he was so engaged the accident occurred. He further testified that no bell was rung nor whistle blown, and that his view of the railway over which the train approached was obstructed by weeds, bushes, and trees which had been permitted to grow and remain upon the ground between the highway and the railway track. The testimony of plaintiff as to the nature of the crossing, the obstructions to sight, and the failure of defendant to give any signal of the approach of the train, is corroborated by that of several witnesses, who...
To continue reading
Request your trial