51 N.W. 254 (Iowa 1892), Platt v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.

Citation:51 N.W. 254, 84 Iowa 694
Opinion Judge:GIVEN, J.
Party Name:J. H. PLATT, Appellant, v. CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & OMAHA RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellee
Attorney:McMillan & Van Wagenen, for appellant. J. H. & C. M. Swan, for appellee.
Case Date:February 10, 1892
Court:Supreme Court of Iowa
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 254

51 N.W. 254 (Iowa 1892)

84 Iowa 694

J. H. PLATT, Appellant,

v.

CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & OMAHA RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellee

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

February 10, 1892

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

[84 Iowa 695] 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...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP