Jeffrey v. Keokuk & Des Moines Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 13 June 1879
• Citation: 1 N.W. 765,51 Iowa 439
• Parties: PETER JEFFREY, APPELLEE, v. THE KEOKUK & DES MOINES RAILWAY CO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

51 Iowa 439

1 N.W. 765

PETER JEFFREY, APPELLEE,

v.THE KEOKUK & DES MOINES RAILWAY CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed June 13, 1879.

Appeal from Van Buren circuit court.

Action to recover for personal injuries received by the plaintiff while an employe of the defendant in operating its road. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was riding upon a construction train consisting of several flat cars and a caboose, the latter being the rear car. The train was near a station, where it was to be allowed to remain until the next day. The caboose was to be put upon a side track upon one side of the main track, and the rest of the train upon a side track upon the other side. The caboose was cut off while the train was in motion, with the design of stopping it upon the main track, and afterwards placing it upon the side track. The train was in charge of one O'Neill, who detached the caboose, the movement of the train having been slackened for that purpose. O'Neill stood at the door of the caboose. Having detached it, he signaled to the engineer to increase speed, which resulted, not only in taking up the slack, but in a slight jerk. The plaintiff was standing upon the flat car from which the caboose had been detached, near the rear end of the car. The jerk caused him to lose his equilibrium, and, in stepping rearward to regain it, he fell off and was run over by the caboose, which was following not far behind. One of his legs was crushed, and amputation was made necessary. He complains that O'Neill was negligent in causing the sudden forward movement of the train without giving him due warning. Other facts are stated in the opinion. There was a trial by jury, and verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff for six thousand and five hundred dollars. The defendant appeals.Gillmore & Anderson and Lea & Beaman, for appellant.

Craig & Collier, for appellee.

ADAMS, J.

--The plaintiff was allowed to introduce in evidence, against the objection of the defendant, a rule of the company adopted for the government of its employes prohibiting “flying or running switches.” It is insisted that the rule was irrelevant and immaterial, because it appears from the evidence that no such switch was made or attempted. The rule certainly was inadmissible, unless there was evidence tending to show that it was violated, and that the accident occurred by reason of the acts by which it was violated. The only object of introducing the rule must be to make that negligence, which, but for the rule and the violation of it, would not be negligence. Where an act is such as to constitute negligence of itself, independent of any express rule and its violation, there can be nothing gained by proof of the rule and its violation. Whether an act which of itself falls short of constituting negligence, can be held to be negligence by reason merely of its being a violation of an express rule of the company, we need not determine. It is sufficient to say that the evidence, we...