Platt v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.

Citation51 N.W. 254,84 Iowa 694
PartiesJ. H. PLATT, Appellant, v. CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & OMAHA RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellee
Decision Date10 February 1892
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa

Appeal from Lyon District Court.--HON. GEORGE W. WAKEFIELD, Judge.

ACTION to recover damages on account of personal injuries alleged to have been "caused by the negligence of the defendant in building and having the roof of its depot dangerously and negligently low, and allowing and building it so as it projected dangerously and negligently too close to cars passing." At the conclusion of the introduction of testimony by the plaintiff, the defendant moved to dismiss the action, which motion was sustained, and the jury instructed to find for the defendant. The plaintiff's motion for new trial being overruled, judgment was entered for the defendant on the verdict, from which the plaintiff appeals, assigning as errors the sustaining of the defendant's motion to dismiss, and directing a verdict and in overruling the plaintiff's motion for new trial. Affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

McMillan & Van Wagenen, for appellant.

J. H. & C. M. Swan, for appellee.

OPINION

GIVEN, J.

The facts shown by the evidence introduced by the plaintiff are as follows: The plaintiff, then aged twenty-three, was, on and for some time prior to October 30, 1889, in the employment of a Mr. Wallace as a drayman at Rock Rapids, and was familiar with the defendant's depot building and platforms at that station. A car somewhat higher and wider than ordinary freight cars, loaded with lumber for a Mr Lyon, was at the station, which car the plaintiff was assisting in unloading. On that day he and Mr. Wallace commenced unloading the car where it stood, but, the place being less convenient for that work than a point north of a crossing near the south end of the depot building, the plaintiff requested one of the defendant's conductors to have the car pulled over the crossing, which he did, but not as far north as the plaintiff desired. The plaintiff said to the conductor that he wanted it above the crossing, to which he replied, "All right, we will run it up by hand." The conductor, Mr. Bushnell (defendant's station agent) and some others, with the plaintiff and Mr. Wallace proceeded to push the car further north along a side track passing on the west side of the depot building, the plaintiff being at the southeast corner of the car. While the car was in motion, Mr. Bushnell, looking towards the plaintiff, but without naming any person, said: "Climb on the car as quickly as you can and set the brake." The plaintiff stepped back, and, seeing a ladder on the east side of the car at the further end, climbed upon the depot platform, ran to the ladder and up the same, and was caught between the eave of the projecting roof of the depot building and the eave or edge of the car and injured, to his damage. The depot building was originally constructed with the platform about eight feet wide on the east and west sides thereof. It was afterwards, and long before this accident moved north and west, so as to admit of an addition on the south end and a platform ten or twelve feet wide on the east side, the platform on the west being cut down to four or five feet. The roof was left unchanged, and projected west about as far as the platform, or within two to two and one half feet as far west as the nearest rail. The rail and roof were not in line, the space between a passing car and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT