O'Donnell v. Chi., M. & St. P. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 June 1886
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Parties: O'DONNELL v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. R. CO.

69 Iowa 102

28 N.W. 464

O'DONNELL

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

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 14, 1886.

Appeal from O'Brien district court.

The plaintiff seeks to recover in this action for a personal injury which she alleges she received by reason of the negligence of the defendant in leaving a railroad car “at and near the crossing of Third avenue of the town of Sheldon, Iowa, on said defendant's track;” and that while attempting to cross said track the horse driven by the plaintiff became frightened at said car, and ran away, and plaintiff was thrown from the cart or buggy drawn by the horse, and was thus injured. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.George E. Clarke, for appellant.

C. H. Bullis and P. R. Bailey, for appellee.

ROTHROCK, J.

It appears from the evidence in the case that Third avenue, in the town of Sheldon, extends to the depot grounds of the defendant's road. Across the depot grounds, opposite the terminus of Third avenue, there is another avenue which terminates at the depot grounds. No street or highway has been laid out across the depot grounds, but since the railroad has been constructed, which has been for several years, the public have traveled across the depot grounds from the terminus of Third avenue to the street opposite, and this line of travel is one of the principal highways leading from the country into the town. The railroad company planked its track, so that travel could conveniently cross over. This plank crossing is 32 feet wide. It is not on a precise line with an extension of Third avenue, but somewhat to one side. An advertising car, belonging to a circus, was left standing on one of the tracks of the railroad from Friday night until Sunday afternoon. The end of the car was close to the end of the plank crossing. It may have been that it encroached on the crossing, but, if so, the encroachment was very slight. Other cars stood upon the track at the other end of the crossing, but we do not understand that they in any manner interfered with the travel. The plaintiff and a female companion were riding in a road cart on Sunday afternoon, and in driving across the railroad track the horse became frightenedat the advertising car, and ran away, and plaintiff fell out of the cart, and was injured. The above-recited facts are not in dispute.

One ground of the motion for a new trial was that the verdict was not supported by the evidence. We are very clearly of the opinion that the motion should...