Lonergren v. Ill. Cent. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 10 October 1891
• Citation: 49 N.W. 852,87 Iowa 755
• Parties: LONERGREN v. ILLINOIS CENT. RY. CO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

87 Iowa 755

49 N.W. 852

LONERGREN

v.ILLINOIS CENT. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 10, 1891.

Appeal from district court, Floyd county; GEORGE W. RUDDICK, Judge.

Action to recover for personal injuries caused by negligence of defendant's employes in failing to ring the bell of an engine running upon defendant's railroad. The cause was tried to a jury, and upon direction of the court a verdict was rendered for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.J. S. Root, for appellant.

W. J. Knight, for appellee.

BECK, C. J.

1. The undisputed facts of the case are these: While the plaintiff was rightfully engaged in unloading corn from his wagon into a crib upon defendant's depot ground near the railroad track, an engine passing on the railroad frightened defendant's horses hitched to the wagon, causing them to run away, throwing plaintiff from the wagon, thereby inflicting personal injuries, to recover for which this suit is brought. The crib in which defendant was unloading the corn was near two highway crossings upon defendant's road, over which the engine ran without the bell thereon being rung. Upon these facts the court directed a verdict for defendant by an instruction in the following language: “You are instructed in this case, the evidence of the plaintiff, which is undisputed, shows that at the time the plaintiff's team started to run, and he was thrown from the wagon and injured, he was unloading a load of corn at the corn-crib, near the defendant's station-house, and was not attempting to cross the railway track, or using a highway for the purpose of traveling thereon. Under these circumstances, I charge you that the failure to ring the bell, as charged in the petition, does not constitute negligence on the part of defendant, for which it can be held liable in this action, and that the statute requiring a bell to be rung approaching public crossings does not apply to this case, and your verdict should be for the defendant.” Upon this instruction arises the only question in the case.

2. Chapter 104, Acts 20th Gen. Assem., (Miller's Code, 471,) provides as follows: “That a bell and a steam-whistle shall be placed on each locomotive engine operated on any railway in this state, and said whistle shall be twice sharply sounded at least sixty rods before a highway crossing is reached, and after the sounding of the whistle the bell shall be rung continuously until the crossing is passed: providing, that at street crossings within the limits of incorporated cities or towns the sounding may be omitted, unless required by the council of any such city or town; and the company shall also be liable for all damages which shall be sustained by any person by reason of such neglect.” Section 2: “Every officer or employe of any railway company who shall violate any of the provisions of this act shall be punished by fine, not exceeding one hundred dollars, for each offense.” The statute imposed the duty upon the person operating the engine to ring the bell while the engine was passing the place where plaintiff was unloading his corn, and makes the neglect of such a duty a misdemeanor punishable by fine, and declares that defendant shall “be liable for...