Harper v. Barnard
| Decision Date | 14 October 1896 |
| Citation | 68 N.W. 599,99 Iowa 159 |
| Parties | JAMES HARPER v. J. F. BARNARD, Receiver of THE OMAHA & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Page District Court.--HON. A. B. THORNELL, Judge.
ACTION at law to recover for injuries to plaintiff's property and person, caused by his being run into by one of defendant's trains while traveling in a buggy at a public highway crossing. Plaintiff alleges that defendant's employes were negligent in running said train at a high rate of speed, and in not giving the signals required by law. He also alleges that he was free from negligence. The defendant answered denying generally. A verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff for one thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars, and judgment entered thereon, from which the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Theodore Sheldon for appellant.
W. P Ferguson for appellee.
Appellee questions the sufficiency of the assignments of error. They are, in most instances, quite general, and not as specific as the rules of practice require; but the only assignment urged in argument by appellant, we think, is sufficiently specific to entitle appellant to a consideration thereof. The only complaint made on this appeal, by appellant, is that the court erred in overruling its motion for a verdict, and its motion for a new trial, on the ground that plaintiff was guilty of negligence contributing to the injuries complained of. We have examined the evidence with care, and reach the conclusion that there was no error in these rulings. We think there is such conflict in the evidence as to require that the issue as to plaintiff's negligence should be submitted to the jury, and that, under the evidence, we should not disturb the finding of the jury on this issue. We will not set out nor discuss the evidence bearing upon this issue at length but state sufficient of it to show that there was a conflict and that the finding has support in the evidence: On October 29, 1894, about 10 A. M., plaintiff was traveling alone south, in a one-horse top buggy, on a public highway that crosses defendant's track at right angles about one mile east of the town of Shenandoah. One of defendant's passenger trains, then running west on schedule time and at schedule speed, struck the rear part of plaintiff's buggy in which he sat, breaking the buggy, and inflicting personal injuries upon the plaintiff. All the witnesses agree that it was rather a dark cloudy morning, and that snow and rain were falling. They also agree that there was a growth of weeds, brush, and trees along the east side of the highway...
To continue reading
Request your trial