Kerns v. The Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 April 1895
• Citation: 62 N.W. 692,94 Iowa 121
• Parties: DENNIS KERNS v. THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

62 N.W. 692

94 Iowa 121

DENNIS KERNS v. THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

April 4, 1895

Appeal from Dallas District Court.--HON. J. H. APPLEGATE, Judge.

Action at law to recover for injuries alleged to have been sustained by reason of negligence on the part of defendant. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Edmund Nichols and Wright & Baldwin for appellant.

Shortley & Harpel for appellee.

OPINION

Robinson, J.

In December, 1892, the plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant, in its yards at Perry, and in attempting to make a coupling, in the line of his duty, he received a serious injury to one of his hands, and for that he seeks to recover. At the time of receiving the injury he was attempting to couple the pilot bar of a locomotive road engine to a box car which was furnished with a Janney coupler and drawbar. He alleges that while he was in front of the engine, holding the pilot bar in position to couple, the engineer in charge of the engine wrongfully, negligently, and unskillfully operated it, carelessly and suddenly increased its speed to a dangerous rate, and ran the engine with reckless force and violence against the box car, knocking it forward and shoving the plaintiff out of balance, and, while he was in that condition, wrongfully and negligently ran the engine against the car, shoving the pilot under its end, thereby crushing and injuring the hand of the plaintiff, and causing the injuries in question. The defendant denies all allegations of negligence on its part, and avers that the plaintiff was injured in consequence of his own negligence.

I. There was a conflict in the evidence in regard to the proper manner of making the coupling which the plaintiff attempted to make when injured. Witnesses on the part of the defendant testified that the person making such a coupling should stand on the pilot, with his toes or heels between the pilot bars while witnesses for the plaintiff testified that he should stand upon the ground. One of the witnesses, Patrick Kerns testified in regard to the usual manner of coupling a box car to an engine with a pilot-bar coupling. The defendant objected to the testimony, and insists that it was erroneously admitted, on the ground that the witness had not shown himself competent to testify. The witness had been engaged in railroad work for twenty years, and had been in the construction department, but had never made a pilot bar coupling. He had seen such couplings made by others frequently, and knew and testified how they were usually made. He was not asked, and did not give, his opinion in regard to the matter, but merely testified to a relevant fact within his personal knowledge, and we think he was fully qualified to do so.

II. It is more difficult to couple to a Janney coupler than to others, and some evidence was introduced which tended to show that the coupling of a pilot-bar to a box car was dangerous and the defendant contends that the attempt to make it was contrary to a rule of the company which is as follows "To All Trainmen and Switchmen: You are prohibited from using any tools or appliances of any kind that are not safe to be used." Another rule or notice is as follows: "This company will furnish its employes tools, machinery, and rolling stock and appliances which are in good order, and safe for the use for which they are intended. Employes will always be upheld by the company in refusing to use tools, machinery, rolling stock, or appliances which are unsafe." These rules must receive a reasonable interpretation. The operation of a railway is necessarily accompanied by many dangers, prominent among which is the making of couplings. Tools, machinery, rolling stock and appliances may be...