Heinze v. Interurban Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 July 1908 |
| Parties | FRANK J. HEINZE, Appellant, v. INTERURBAN RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Polk District Court.-- HON. WILLIAM H. MCHENRY, Judge.
SUIT to recover for personal injuries. There was a directed verdict for the defendant, and from a judgment thereon the plaintiff appeals. Reversed and former opinion withdrawn.
Reversed.
Hume & Hamilton, for appellant.
N. T Guernsey and Parker, Hewitt & Wright, for appellee.
The defendant operates a railroad from the corner of Sixth and Mulberry streets to and beyond East Sixteenth street in the city of Des Moines. Its cars do not stop at all street intersections; but there are stations several blocks apart at which it receives and discharges passengers who are either leaving the city or coming thereto. There was evidence in the record from which the jury would have been justified in finding the following facts: That the plaintiff had bought a ticket from the defendant entitling him to transportation from the starting point of defendant's line to East Sixteenth street, and that he entered one of the defendant's regular passenger cars at the former point that when the car was within about a block of the plaintiff's destination he left his seat, handed his ticket to the conductor, and told him that he wanted to get off on Sixteenth street; that there was another passenger on the car for the same station, who had also notified the conductor of his destination; that about fifty feet before the car got to Sixteenth street the conductor gave the motorman the usual signal for stopping the car at Sixteenth street; and that the plaintiff heard the signal and understood what it meant. It was also shown that the other passenger, Mr. Swanders, had been in the vestibule of the car during its trip toward Sixteenth street that as the car approached the street it slackened its speed; and that, when it started across Sixteenth street, he and the plaintiff stepped from the vestibule onto the car step, both of them taking hold of the railing provided for the purpose, and intending to alight when the car came to a full stop. The car was at that time moving slowly; but almost immediately after the plaintiff and Swanders had stepped down onto the step it gave a sudden and severe lurch, throwing both of them from the step to the street at a point between the middle and east side of the street. The car did not stop at the street.
We think the questions of the defendant's negligence and of the plaintiff's freedom from contributory negligence were for...
To continue reading
Request your trial