Coleman v. Iowa Ry. & Light Co., 34088.
| Citation | 186 N.W. 642,192 Iowa 1331 |
| Decision Date | 07 February 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 34088.,34088. |
| Parties | COLEMAN v. IOWA RY. & LIGHT CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Linn County; F. F. Dawley, Judge.
Action at law to recover damages for the death of Charles Coleman, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Samuel A. Anderson, of St. Paul, Minn., J. E. Holmes, of Des Moines, and Voris & Haas, of Marion, for appellant.
Barnes, Chamberlain, Hanzlik & Thompson, Johnson & Donnelly, Ralph Maclean, and John A. Reed, all of Cedar Rapids, for appellee.
This action has been twice tried in the district court and is now before us on a second appeal. On the first trial there was a directed verdict and judgment for the defendant, a ruling which was reversed by us on the ground that plaintiff had made a sufficient showing to entitle her to go to the jury upon the merits of her claim. See Coleman v. Ry. & Light Co., 178 N. W. 365. On the second trial there was a jury verdict for the defendant, and from the judgment rendered thereon the present appeal is taken. The defendant is the proprietor of an electric light plant furnishing electricity and light to its patrons. One of its service wires was connected with a building owned by plaintiff's intestate, thereby supplying the building with light and power. To make proper connection for said power with a washing machine, the deceased undertook to attach a drop cord or extension in the usual manner, and while in that act received an electric shock causing his death. This result is alleged to have been brought about by the negligence of the defendant, in that the service wire in question was strung for a distance upon the same poles on which high-tensioned wires carrying a powerful current were maintained, and that said service wire was strung or maintained in such loose or slack or inefficient manner as to permit it to come in contact with the hightension wires, thereby conducting a powerful and dangerous current of electricity into the building, and thus exposing to imminent peril of injury and death any person attempting to use the power or light for domestic purpose. The defendant denies all charges of negligence on its part, and avers that the deceased was himself guilty of contributory negligence.
[1] I. In so far as the case involves disputes upon material matters of fact, they have been decided by the jury adversely to the plaintiff, and it is not within the province of this court upon appeal to interfere with such findings. We therefore confine our attention to the alleged errors which plaintiff has assigned upon the rulings of the trial court. These criticisms are directed mainly to the instructions given the jury. It is first said the court erred in saying to the jury, in substance, that if they did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial