Anderson v. Ill. Cent. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 October 1899
• Citation: 109 Iowa 524,80 N.W. 561
• Parties: ANDERSON v. ILLINOIS CENT. RY. CO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

109 Iowa 524

80 N.W. 561

ANDERSON

v.ILLINOIS CENT. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 24, 1899.

Appeal from district court, Delaware county; A. S. Blair, Judge.

Action at law to recover for the death of the plaintiff's intestate, alleged to have been caused by negligence on the part of the defendant. After the evidence had been fully submitted, the court, on the motion of the defendant, directed a verdict in its favor, and rendered judgment against the plaintiff for costs. From that judgment she appeals. Reversed.Bronson & Carr, for appellant.

W. J. Knight and Dunham, Norris & Stiles, for appellee.

ROBINSON, C. J.

In March, 1895, the decedent, John Anderson, was in the employment of the defendant as a section hand, subject to the orders of his section foreman, William Durey. The duties of the decedent required him to walk the track, and to perform any labor which Durey directed him to do. The evening before the accident in question occurred, Durey ordered Anderson to appear the next morning and assist in rearranging a load of piles, to make them safe for further shipment. The piles were from 40 to 50 feet in length, and from 12 to 18 inches in diameter, and were loaded on two flat cars. Durey directed the men to work the piles over to one side of the cars and to restake one side, then to work the piles back and to restake the other side, and then to so level the piles that they could be hauled without danger. Three men were engaged in the work,--one at each end of the piles, and the decedent between them. The implements furnished the men for the work were crowbars and pinchbars. Both sides of the cars had been staked, and the men were engaged in leveling the piles, standing on one pile and trying to roll the one next to it into the center, when Anderson's bar slipped, and he lost his balance and was obliged to jump to the ground, receiving injuries which are said to have caused his death. The allegation of negligence is that “the tools, apparatus, and appliances furnished by the defendant to the said decedent and his co-employés with which to perform said work were insufficient and unsafe and not proper or adequate for the purposes for which they had to be and were used by said decedent and his co-employés, and defendant's failure to furnish safe and suitable tools, apparatus, and appliances with which to perform the said work required by it of said decedent caused the accident which resulted in the death of said decedent.”

The plaintiff sought to show on the trial that cant hooks were best suited to the work of handling the piles, and safer than were the crowbars and pinchbars furnished, and were usually used for such work, but much of the testimony offered for that purpose was rejected by the court. There was evidence which tended to show that cant hooks were not furnished to the sectionmen at Manchester; that during the 4 1/2 years next precedingthe accident the sectionmen had never been required to handle piles; and it is not shown that the decedent, during his seven years' service for the defendant, was ever required to work about piles before the morning of the accident. The jury would have been authorized to find that the work in which he was engaged at the time of the accident was new to him. It is the well-settled rule that it is the duty of the master to make reasonable efforts to furnish his servant with suitable and safe appliances for the performance of the duties assigned to him. Newbury v. Manufacturing Co., 100 Iowa, 441, 69 N. W. 743;Fink v. Ice Co., 84 Iowa, 321, 51 N. W. 155;Corson...