Coffman v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.

• Decision Date: 08 February 1894
• Citation: 57 N.W. 955,90 Iowa 462
• Parties: C. W. COFFMAN, Administrator v. THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

57 N.W. 955

90 Iowa 462

C. W. COFFMAN, Administrator v. THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

February 8, 1894

Appeal from Shelby District Court.--HON. WALTER I. SMITH, Judge.

ACTION to recover damages alleged to have been caused to the estate of plaintiff's intestate by negligence on the part of defendant. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. The defendant appeals.

Reversed.

T. S Wright, H. W. Byers, and Wright & Baldwin for appellant.

Turner Smith & Cullison for appellee.

OPINION

ROBINSON, J.

On the fifth day of September, 1889, Edward A. Bennett was in the employment of defendant as brakeman on one of its freight trains. While engaged in the duties of his employment he assisted in placing in the front end of his train at Anita two cars owned by a man named Sutton, and known as "Dick Sutton's Uncle Tom's Cabin Cars" One was designed for the use of passengers, and the other for baggage and animals. The cars were coupled together, and were furnished with the Miller hook coupling. The train was run to Atlantic, where the Sutton cars were placed on a side track, for the purpose of changing them to the rear end of the caboose. The train was then moved westward, and was backed in on the side track, to have the Sutton cars coupled to the caboose. That was furnished with a common square-headed drawbar, and the coupling was to be made with a link and pin. Bennett went between the cars to make the coupling, and while there received injuries which caused his death. The plaintiff is executor of his estate, and alleges in the petition that the death of Bennett was caused by the negligence of the defendant as follows: First. In using defective, improper, and unsafe appliances to attach the Sutton car to the caboose; second, in directing the coupling to be made, and in pushing the cars together with such force as to cause the couplings to pass each other, thus allowing the cars to go together so closely as to crush the decedent between them; third, in ordering or permitting its employees to haul the Sutton cars in the freight train; fourth, in not giving the proper signals to decedent, in not obeying his signals, in not furnishing him with proper appliances for making the coupling, and in not having each of the cars provided with bumpers so arranged as to protect the decedent when engaged in making the coupling. The jury returned seventeen special findings and a general verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of two thousand, five hundred dollars. The defendant filed a motion for judgment in its favor on the special findings notwithstanding the general verdict; and on the same day, and subject to that motion, it filed a motion in arrest of judgment, and for a new trial. The latter was afterward withdrawn, and the motion for judgment was submitted, and overruled. Judgment was then rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of the verdict and costs, to all of which the defendant excepted.

I. The defendant insists that the special findings are inconsistent with the general verdict, and, if that is true, the motion for judgment in its favor should have been sustained. Code section 2809. The special findings show the following facts: Just before the decedent attempted to make the coupling he gave a signal to stop the train. The signal was repeated to the engineer, and he obeyed it. After that decedent gave a signal to back slowly, which was repeated to the engineer, and obeyed. No signal to stop was afterward given by the decedent. While he was in the service of the defendant, the ordinary and usual method of coupling a car provided with a Miller hook to a car provided with a...