Fitter v. The Iowa Telephone Co.

• Decision Date: 10 February 1906
• Citation: Fitter v. The Iowa Telephone Co., 106 N.W. 7, 129 Iowa 610 (Iowa 1906)
• Parties: CHARLES FITTER, Appellee, v. THE IOWA TELEPHONE COMPANY, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

106 N.W. 7

129 Iowa 610

CHARLES FITTER, Appellee, v. THE IOWA TELEPHONE COMPANY, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

February 10, 1906

Appeal from Des Moines District Court.-- HON. W. S. WITHROW, Judge.

ACTION to recover damages for a personal injury. Briefly stated, the circumstances out of which the accident resulting in such injury arose were these: The defendant was engaged in constructing a telephone line in Burlington, this state. The work was in charge of a superintendent named Haney, to whom plaintiff applied for work, and by whom he was employed and assigned to assist the men engaged in digging holes in which to set the telephone poles. A few days after plaintiff's employment began a wagon was driven up on which were two poles, each about sixty feet in length and about fourteen inches in diameter at the butt. The wagon in use was an ordinary farm wagon, lengthened out for the instant purpose and the poles were loaded with the butts forward. One Shane who was employed with the hole digging gang, called to plaintiff and others to go with him and assist the "polemen," as they were called, in unloading the poles. The unloading was done under the direction of one of the polemen named Riddle. The butt end of one pole was lifted off to the ground and swung around so that the upper portion thereof rested against the other pole. Thereupon Shane remained at the butt, and the others, including Riddle and plaintiff, went to the opposite side of the wagon and attempted with their hands to push or slide the pole along the surface of the one remaining and upon which it rested the apparent intention being, when lowered to the rear portion of the wagon, to lift it over the hind wheel, and so carry it to the ground. As the pole was started, Riddle called to the men to hold on, as the pole would break if allowed to fall. It seems that both poles had been peeled and the pole remaining on the wagon was wet. Suddenly the pole being handled escaped from the control of the men; some one called "Look out " and all but the plaintiff let go. The pole slid quickly to the wagon, and as it went down plaintiff's arm was caught between the two poles, and the bones of his wrist fractured, entailing a permanent injury. The case was tried to a jury, and from a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff, the defendant appeals.-- Reversed.

Reversed.

Power & Power, for appellant.

A. M. Antrobus and F. E. Thompson, for appellee.

OPINION

BISHOP, J.--

The grounds of negligence charged involve the manner or method adopted to accomplish the work of unloading the pole. And among other things, it is said that an insufficient number of men were provided to do the work in the manner in which it was attempted to be done. One Bean, a witness for plaintiff, after having detailed the circumstances of the accident, was thus interrogated: "Q. For the purpose of showing there wasn't a sufficient number of men to unload the pole with safety to those engaged in unloading it, I will ask you this question: After Fitter was hurt, how did they unload that pole -- right immediately afterward? (Objected to and overruled.) A. The small end of the pole was pried up, and the team was backed up until it was light enough for what men there were there to unload it. The wagon was...