Baldwin v. St. Louis, K. & N. W. R. Co.
| Citation | 18 N.W. 884,63 Iowa 210 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
| Decision Date | 09 April 1884 |
| Parties | BALDWIN v. ST. LOUIS, K. & N. W. R. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Lee district court.
Action for a personal injury alleged to have been sustained by the falling of a pile of lumber owned by the defendant and piled by it on its premises. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a carpenter in building a roundhouse. A short distance from this house were two piles of lumber, which were so near each other as to be in contact. The two piles are described by the plaintiff in his testimony as “a small pile and a larger one.” The plaintiff and another carpenter, while engaged in their duties, were taking a stick of timber from the small pile whon a portion of the large pile fell and caused the injury of which the plaintiff complains. The plaintiff avers, in substance, that the defendant was guilty of negligence in that it constructed the pile so as to be dangerous and allowed it to remain so. There was a trial to a jury, and verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.Anderson Bros. & Davis and Geo. F. Hatch, for appellant.
Browne & Browne, for appellee.
The defendant denied all negligence upon its part, and averred that the plaintiff was guilty of negligence which caused the injury. The alleged defect in the construction of the pile that fell consisted in using crosss-trips of insufficient length. The pile consisted of three tiers of timber. Precisely how long the cross-strips were is not shown. They were long enough, as we infer, to pass through the middle tier and reach into the outside tiers, but not long enough to reach through the outside tiers. The disturbance of the small pile, by taking a stick of timber therefrom, either removed, as we infer, a needed support from the larger pile, or jostled it. The defendant insists that the plaintiff saw, or should have seen in the exercise of reasonable care, how the pile was constructed, and that if such was the fact he was guilty of contributory negligence. In the determination of the fact it became an important inquiry as to whether there was anything to prevent the plaintiff from seeing how the timbers were piled. On this point the other carpenter who was working with the plaintiff was examined as a witness, and testified in these words: “There was nothing to prevent any one that was working there from seeing how they were piled.” No witness testified to the contrary. When the case was submitted to the jury a special interrogatory was propounded, as follows: “Was there anything to prevent the plaintiff from seeing the manner in which the timbers were piled?” To this interrogatory the jury answered, “Yes.” This finding was not only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spicer v. Webster City
...but in conflict with it, is a sufficient showing of passion and prejudice on the part of the jury to call for a new trial. Baldwin v. Railway Co., 63 Iowa 210; Heath v. Mining Co., 65 Iowa 737, 23 N.W. Jeffrey v. Railroad Co., 51 Iowa 439. But a distinction seems to have been drawn between ......
-
Spicer v. City
...in conflict with it, is a sufficient showing of passion and prejudice on the part of the jury to call for a new trial. Baldwin v. Railway Co., 63 Iowa, 210, 18 N. W. 884;Heath v. Mining Co., 65 Iowa, 737, 23 N. W. 148;Jeffrey v. Railroad Co., 51 Iowa, 439, 1 N. W. 765. But a distinction see......
- Baldwin v. St. Louis, Keokuk & North Western Railway Co.