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

• Decision Date: 14 February 1912
• Citation: 134 N.W. 855,154 Iowa 140
• Parties: MARGARET DORN v. THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

134 N.W. 855

154 Iowa 140

MARGARET DORN v. THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

February 14, 1912

Appeal from Lyon District Court.--HON. DAVID MOULD, Judge.

FROM judgment, awarding plaintiff damages, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

J. L Parrish, Robt. J. Bannister, and E. C. Roach, for appellant.

S. D Riniker, for appellee.

OPINION

LADD, J.

As the plaintiff stepped from the doorway of defendant's passenger car, immediately after the train had stopped at Little Rock, she put her hand on the jamb of the door, and as she turned on the platform to go to the steps, the door swung to and crushed the joint on her ring finger so that it was necessary to amputate it. The conductor previously had opened the door, immediately after the announcement of the station, swinging it back so that a catch attached two or three inches from the top fastened into a spring or slot attached near the top of the gentlemen's closet door. The evidence showed that the door was not loosened by any person. There was some testimony that one rail of the track might have been a little higher than the other, but this was shown by the evidence of the conductor not to be sufficient to have interfered with the fastening. When both doors were open, as they were at the time, a draught or current of air is said to have passed through the car, the night being warm and dark, and all windows open. The shape of the part fastened to the car door is indicated by the drawing "A" and that attached to the closet door by "B":

[SEE DRAWING IN ORIGINAL]

"A" was fastened to the car door with two screws, as indicated by lines at the base, and "B" fastened with three screws, indicated in the same way. By turning the two side screws in "B", the lips into which "A" entered were brought closer together and held "A" the more firmly, and, of course, by turning them the other way, the hold was weakened. As the door was swung open, plaintiff heard these come together and shortly thereafter walked through the doorway, being the last to leave the car. Some time before she had opened the door so that the catch fastened, walked out on the platform to look for the conductor, as she contemplated going on to Rock Rapids instead of getting off at Little Rock, and, upon reentering, she had stood for a few moments near the doorway, when the door swung against her shoulder. The conductor and brakeman examined the catch, some little time after leaving Little Rock and both testified that the parts of the catch seemed to be securely fastened, the conductor saying that they did not observe whether the catch on the closet door was screwed down tightly or otherwise, and the brakeman that he opened and shut the door and did not observe anything wrong with the catch. Upon this showing, the defendant contends that there was not sufficient evidence to carry the case to the jury.

I. The issue as to whether plaintiff in what she did was in the exercise of ordinary care was for the jury. Of course she knew, as everyone else does, that if the door shut on her hand, it likely would be injured; but announcing the station, swinging the door open so as to fasten it by the conductor, was in the nature of an assurance that those desiring to get off might pass through the door safely. The night was dark, and, not unnaturally, plaintiff took hold of the most accessible object--the door jamb--to steady her as she passed onto the platform and turned to go down onto the steps. She had heard the catch as the door slammed back, and though she knew that it had swung against her when the train was in motion, it can not be said that in turning toward the steps, in the darkness, she was negligent in not apprehending the door might become unfastened and swing shut while the car was standing still. Nor was she bound to make nice calculations of the effect of the current of air through the car on the fastening of the door when swung back so as to cover a corner, but might proceed on the theory that the appliances were sufficient, at least, to meet ordinary conditions. Naturally enough, her mind was bent on reaching the depot platform, and it should not be said, as a matter of law, that, under the circumstances disclosed, she was negligent in placing her hand where she did in attempting so to do.

In Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Overall, 82 Tex. 247 (18 S.W. 142), the passenger was standing on the platform with his hand on the door jamb when the brakeman or a woman shut the door, and it was held that he was negligent in so placing himself. The distinction is plain. The plaintiff had not taken up her position on the platform, but was using it as a means of exit.

In Richardson v. Railway (1868), C. P. 37 Law Jour. 300, the door was shut by the guard in the performance of his duty after directing the passengers to take their places. Neither of these cases nor others cited by appellant are inconsistent with our conclusion which finds direct support in decisions subsequently cited.

II. It was the defendant's duty to provide a car which was safe to equip it with proper appliances, and to keep these in repair, and therein the highest degree of care was exacted. 6 Cyc. 621. 3 Thompson on Negligence, section 2720 et seq. See Louisville Ry. Co. v. Park, 96 Ky. 580 (29 S.W. 455), where the step to a car was worn and slippery. International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Anthony, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 9 (57 S.W. 897), where a seat in the coach...