Pelton v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.
Decision Date | 19 December 1914 |
Docket Number | 29623 |
Parties | W. L. PELTON, Appellee, v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
REHEARING DENIED WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1915.
Appeal from Webster District Court.--HON. R. M. WRIGHT, Judge.
ACTION for damages for personal injuries to an alleged employee. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Kenyon Kelleher & O'Connor and Price & Joyce, for appellee.
Helsell & Helsell, for appellant.
1. Action was brought under the Federal Employer's Liability Act. The petition alleged that the plaintiff was a brakeman in the regular employment of the defendant railroad company, and that he was injured through the negligence of the company. It is also averred that the defendant was then and there engaged in interstate commerce, and that the injury of the plaintiff was sustained "while he was employed by such carrier in such commerce." The answer was a general denial, and pleas of contributory negligence and assumption of risk.
One of the questions put forward by appellant is whether, at the time of the injury, the plaintiff himself was employed by the defendant in interstate commerce. And this depends upon the question whether, at the time of the injury, the plaintiff was employed in the operation of the train upon which he was riding, or whether he was riding thereon as a passenger to Fort Dodge, which was one of the terminals of his ordinary run as brakeman. The plaintiff was concededly an employee of the defendant, and had been for some years. He was engaged as head brakeman, and was one of a through freight crew. This train crew consisted of conductor Emory, head brakeman Pelton, and rear brakeman Fuhrman. The engine crew consisted of engineer Haviland and fireman Johnson. The above named generally worked together as one crew upon "through freight" trains. Their run was from Fort Dodge to Council Bluffs. The accident in question happened upon a passenger train and on November 20, 1911. The crew above named was in charge of that particular train, under special orders to that effect.
Whether such order included the plaintiff or imposed any duty upon him with reference to such train is one of the questions raised in argument, the defendant contending that there was insufficient evidence to support an affirmative finding on that question. The defendant concedes that that particular train was engaged in interstate commerce at the time. But it contends that the burden was upon the plaintiff to prove that he was engaged in such commerce; that is, that his employment related to the operation of that particular train at that time. Plaintiff's counsel concede that this burden is upon them, and contend that the evidence is abundant to support such burden. It appears from the evidence that the defendant's regular through passenger train, known as No. 2, was due to leave Council Bluffs for the east about 6 P. M. On the day in question, it was held for a brief time to await the arrival of a car over the Union Pacific Railroad, which car was occupied by a company of soldiers, destined for some eastern point. The delay in the arrival of such car over the Union Pacific was such that the defendant company sent on this passenger train No. 2 without waiting for it. At the same time, it ordered a special train to be made up, for the purpose of transporting the car of soldiers as soon as it should arrive. Such special train was run as section 2 of No. 2. It was deemed as a first-class passenger train, and entitled to the same rights and subject to the same regulations.
The natural inference from the record is that there was no regular train crew available for use upon this temporary train. Conductor Emory and his crew were in Council Bluffs, having brought in a through freight train the day before. The superintendent of the defendant company, through the train dispatcher, directed this crew to take such train from Council Bluffs to Fort Dodge. There is no substantial dispute up to this point. It is the contention of the defendant, however, that such order of the superintendent did not contemplate the inclusion of the plaintiff as a member of the crew, because only one brakeman is included in a passenger train crew, and that the plaintiff, as head brakeman, was, therefore, unnecessary for the purpose of operating this train.
The testimony for the plaintiff tends to show that he was in fact called out as a member of the crew by the regular "caller," in the regular way, and assigned to this train as a member of such crew. Such call included both the engine crew and the train crew.
The plaintiff testified as follows:
Q. "What call boy?" A. Judge Helsell: "Well, I don't remember whether there is anything more in that answer but I move to strike out from the answer that part of it which says 'call boy for the Illinois Central Railroad' as incompetent and the foundation not laid." A. Q. "What did Mr. Emory, if anything, say to you?" A. Q. "What were your duties on this train?" (Objected to, as sufficient foundation has not been laid and it calls for the conclusion and opinion of the witness, a matter that is one of the issues to be determined by the jury in the case.) A. "The customary duties are to take my engine from my train and to bring my engine from the roundhouse to the train." Senator Kenyon: Q. "Well I refer now to when the train was in operation, after leaving Council Bluffs." A.
Conductor Emory testified as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial