Doyle v. Chi., St. P. & K. C. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 May 1889
• Parties: DOYLE v. CHICAGO, ST. P. & K. C. RY. CO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

77 Iowa 607

42 N.W. 555

DOYLE

v.CHICAGO, ST. P. & K. C. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 21, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Marshall county; S. M. WEAVER, Judge.

Action to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff from alleged negligence of defendant's employés while operating a train on its railroad. There was a judgment upon a verdict for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.Hubbard & Dawly, for appellant.

F. Brown and J. L. Carney, for appellee.

BECK, J.

1. The undisputed facts of the case are these: Plaintiff, with other workmen, was employed in repairing a bridge upon defendant's road. A passenger train approaching, the workmen withdrew 12 or 15 feet from the track. As the train passed at a speed of about 30 miles an hour, a coupling-pin of iron, about one foot long and an inch and a quarter in diameter, was hurled from the train, and struck plaintiff upon the head, and fractured his skull. The injury was severe, and from it plaintiff was ill and disabled for several months, and still suffers therefrom. It is shown by the evidence, and we think is not disputed, that the pin was thrown by the wheel of a car. A witness testifies that he heard and saw the pin “striking the wheels,” and saw it thrown in the direction plaintiff, with witness, was standing. The workmen repairing the bridge, or some of them, testified that the pin could not have been thrown from the bridge, for they were working upon the part of the bridge near which the accident occurred. They were employed in repairing the track on the bridge, and doing other work repairing the bridge which required them to make close examination of it. The pin was old, rusty, and bent. It had a hole in the head for a chain, such as is used upon cars having Miller's platform, which was on the cars in the train causing the accident. It is shown that it was not of the structure of the pins used by defendant, and a train-man who helped to make up the train testified that he looked for a loose pin upon the platforms of the train just before it started on the trip, and found none, and there might have been a pin on the train which he overlooked. It appears that pins of various patterns and different construction are found upon trains, being exchanged from cars of other roads. It is not shown by the direct evidence that the pin was on the train. We think the evidence authorizes the conclusion that the pin was on one of the platforms of the train. It is impossible to conclude that it was upon the bridge before the train passed. It was, then, upon the train before it was hurled away, injuring plaintiff; and the conclusion is authorized that in falling from the platfrom of the train it was struck or taken up by the car-wheel, and thrown with force, striking plaintiff. The jury were authorized to find, from the evidence, as they did find, that the pin was upon the train prior to the accident, and that as such pins are constantly used in making up trains, and are often left upon the platforms of cars for convenience in getting them when they are wanted, the jury were authorized to...