Patterson v. Townsend

• Decision Date: 23 May 1894
• Citation: 59 N.W. 205,91 Iowa 725
• Parties: PATTERSON v. TOWNSEND ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

91 Iowa 725

59 N.W. 205

PATTERSON

v.TOWNSEND ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 23, 1894.

Appeal from superior court of Keokuk; H. Bank, Judge.

The plaintiff is a vendor of milk in the city of Keokuk, which he delivers to his customers from a wagon. The defendants are the owners of the Keokuk Electric Railway. The plaintiff attempted to drive his team and wagon across the defendants' railroad track at the intersection of two streets in the city, and his wagon was struck by one of the defendants' cars, and he brought this action to recover damages for the injury resulting from the collision. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.W. J. Roberts, for appellants.

Gibson Brown, for appellee.

ROTHROCK, J.

The petition contained averments charging that the car which came in collision with the wagon was carelessly and negligently operated, so that it became unmanageable and could not be controlled, and that the speed thereof was unusual, and that he (the plaintiff) was without fault or negligence in attempting to cross the railroad track at the time he received the injury. The case presents the usual contention, involving negligence of the defendant and contributory negligence of the plaintiff. The instructions given by the court to the jury are not objectionable. They correctly state the principles of law applicable to cases of this character. It appears that the railroad track of the defendants is laid along Palean street at right angles with, and crosses, Fifth street. The railroad approaches Palean street from Sixth street on the usual curve. The plaintiff was driving his wagon along Fifth street, and, when he approached the crossing of Palean street, he looked up the street, and saw the car moving around the curve from Sixth street. The car was then about 300 feet away from the Fifth street crossing, and it appeared to the plaintiff to be moving at an unusual rate of speed. The fact is, that there was considerable of a descent in the line from Sixth to Fifth street, and the track was slippery by reason of a recent shower of rain, and the car was not within the control of the motorman in charge of it. It made no stop at Sixth street because it would not respond to the brakes. Counsel for appellants discusses the question as to the relative rights of street-railroad companies and the drivers of vehicles upon the streets. The case at bar is somewhat controlled by an ordinance of the city which...