Albright v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 20 October 1925 |
| Docket Number | 36930 |
| Citation | 205 N.W. 462,200 Iowa 678 |
| Parties | J. F. ALBRIGHT, Appellant, v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellee |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Davis District Court.--W. M. WALKER, Judge.
ACTION to recover for damages to property and for personal injuries occasioned by a collision between a truck driven by the plaintiff and a train operated by the defendant. At the close of all the testimony, the court directed a verdict in behalf of the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
H. C. & H. C. Taylor and Buell McCash, for appellant.
Payne & Goodson, J. G. Gamble, and R. N. Lynch, for appellee.
I.
Appellee operates a line of railway which extends in a general easterly and westerly direction through the town of Drakesville in Davis County, and eastward therefrom. The right of way of appellee is crossed at practically right angles by a highway extending north and south at a point about a mile east of Drakesville. The collision in question occurred between four and five o'clock on the afternoon of the 5th of September, 1922. It was a clear day. The right of way of appellee is the usual width of 100 feet, being 50 feet on each side of the center of the track. To the north of the right of way and west of the highway was a cornfield which came to the right-of-way fence. The right of way had been mowed in the month of August, and was free from weeds brush, and other obstructions at or about the crossing. There was a semaphore on the north side of the track, 164 feet west of the right of way, and 995 feet west from the crossing was a semaphore on the south side of the track. The train which caused the collision in question was moving eastward. There is a curve on the track, so that a train coming from Drakesville moves in somewhat of a northeasterly direction until it is near the semaphores referred to, and then passes on what is called a "tangent" toward the east. The result is that an engineer, whose seat is upon the right side of the cab, is prevented from seeing the north approach to the highway crossing while the train is upon the curve. At the time of the collision, appellant was driving a Ford truck, loaded with goods, and was moving south on the highway in question. He was familiar with the railroad crossing, and knew that he was approaching it, and testified that he had in mind that a passenger train was due at about that time. It appears from the evidence in his behalf that appellant approached the railroad crossing at a speed of about twelve miles an hour.
The court having directed a verdict for appellee, we must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to appellant. It is his contention that, when he got to approximately the north line of the right of way, he brought the truck practically to a stop, and that he looked at that time in a westerly direction toward Drakesville, and neither saw nor heard an approaching train. He contends that he then looked toward the east, and, seeing no train from that direction, started his car slowly toward the railroad track. The highway is upgrade from a point near the line of the right of way toward the track, and appellant contends that he moved up this grade at a speed of about five miles an hour; that he had fifteen to sixteen hundred pounds on his truck, which was a one-ton truck, and that he thought he could have stopped his car, while negotiating the movement across the track, in a distance of about three feet. The forward part of the truck passed over the track, and the rear end of the truck was struck by the engine. Appellant contends that he neither saw nor heard the train until the engine was directly upon him.
The train was composed of fifty cars, and had a total length of about 2,000 feet. It was being hauled by a powerful engine, and the evidence of some of the witnesses for appellant is to the effect that the train was moving from fifty to fifty-five miles an hour. There is evidence tending to show that appellee was guilty of negligence in failing to give the statutory signals as the train approached the crossing in question.
Appellant testified that his sight and hearing were good. Appellant's line of vision,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Albright v. Chi., R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
...200 Iowa 678205 N.W. 462ALBRIGHTv.CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO.No. 36930.Supreme Court of Iowa.Oct. 20, ... J.Appellee operates a line of railway which extends in a general easterly and westerly direction ... ...