Calkins v. Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 15 December 1894
• Citation: 92 Iowa 714,61 N.W. 423
• Parties: CALKINS v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

92 Iowa 714

61 N.W. 423

CALKINS

v.CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 15, 1894.

Appeal from district court, Linn county; J. H. Preston, Judge.

Action for damages for a personal injury. Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Thompson & Stuart, for appellant.

Mills & Keeler, for appellee.

KINNE, J.

1. The petition charges that while plaintiff entered between the tender of the locomotive and a freight car to couple them together, and while he was in the act of making said coupling, and without any negligence on his part, “the engineer in charge of said engine, carelessly and recklessly, and without any warning to plaintiff, suffered the brakes of said engine to become suddenly detached from the wheels, and in consequence thereof said engine and tender were permitted to back down with great force and violence, by reason of which plaintiff was caught by the right hand between the draught irons of said tender and car, and three of his fingers on said hand mashed” so that they had to be and were amputated. Defendant admitted that plaintiff was in its employ as a brakeman, as claimed, and that he received certain injuries to his right hand, and denied all other allegations of the petition. At the close of the evidence, and on motion of defendant, the court directed the jury to find a verdict for the defendant, which was done, and a judgment was entered thereon.

2. It appears that on the night of April 22, 1892, plaintiff was the head brakeman upon a freight train on defendant's road which was going up a steep grade called “Haysville Hill,” just south of the station of that name. When the train stopped, plaintiff went back, cut off eight cars, and the engine pulled them into Haysville. After setting these cars out, the conductor remained at the switch, while plaintiff went back, with the engine, to get the remainder of the train. In backing down, steam was shut off when the engine got upon the grade, and it moved by its own momentum, checked occasionally by the air brakes, and came to a full stop about 10 feet away from the cars standing upon the grade. Plaintiff went forward to make the coupling. The link and pin had been left in the head freight car. When uncoupling the train at that place the pin had stuck, and plaintiff pulled the one in the forward car. On returning to couple the engine, he made no attempt to remove this pin and link and to place it in the drawbar of the tender, but, having his lantern on his arm and heavy mittens on his hands, he said to the engineer, “About ten feet back, Dave,” and at the same time gave him a “slow” signal with his lantern. The engineer backed slowly, and, when within three or four feet of the cars, plaintiff stepped in, took hold of the link to guide it into the pocket of the drawbar, and was caught by the hand, and three fingers mashed. Plaintiff, as a witness, was asked, “Would you have pulled the pin in the head car, and put it in the engine?” He answered, “No, sir; I would not, for there was no link in the engine.” The court, on motion of the defendant, struck out all after the words “No, sir,” of which plaintiff complained. The responsive part of the answer was permitted to stand. The balance was in the nature of an explanation or reason, and not called for by the question. Besides, this witness had already given the same reason; so, in any event, plaintiff could not have been prejudiced.

3. Other alleged errors in rulings upon the admission of testimony cannot be considered, as the...