Baldwin v. St. Louis, Keokuk & North Western Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 09 April 1884 |
| Citation | 18 N.W. 884,63 Iowa 210 |
| Parties | BALDWIN v. THE ST. LOUIS, KEOKUK & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
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 round house. 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, when 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.
REVERSED.
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 cross-strips 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 becomes 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 anyone 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 unsupported by the evidence, but directly contrary to the evidence. A motion for a new trial was made upon this ground, but overruled. The defendant assigns the overruling as error.
In an action for a personal injury, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been necessarily guilty of contributory negligence if the danger might have been seen, and avoided if seen. Greenleaf v. Dubuque &...
To continue reading
Request your trial