Pierce v. Cent. Iowa Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 October 1887
• Citation: 34 N.W. 783,73 Iowa 140
• Parties: PIERCE v. CENTRAL IOWA RY. CO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

73 Iowa 140

34 N.W. 783

PIERCE

v.CENTRAL IOWA RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

October 25, 1887.

Appeal from district court, Marshall county.

Action to recover for a personal injury alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of the defendant. There was a trial to a jury, and verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.A. C. Daly, for appellant.

Sutton & Cummings, for appellee.

ADAMS, C. J.

The plaintiff, at the time of the injury, was in the employment of the defendant in one of its shops at Marshalltown. The master mechanic of the shop directed him to go to the passenger station and assist some other employes in removing some screens from the cars of the passenger train while the same should be standing at the station. Immediately after the train came in and stopped, he, acting under one Batly, as foreman, placed a ladder against one of the cars, and ascended the same for the purpose of removing the screens. While he was in that position, the train moved backward, and caused the ladder on which the plaintiff was standing to fall. In the fall he received the injury of which he complains.

1. The defendant insists that the accident did not occur through the negligence of any one of its employes; but in our opinion there was evidence tending to show that it did. There was evidence tending to show that no bell was rung or other warning given of the movement of the train. We think, too, that if his exposed condition was not readily observable by those in charge of the train, they should have been notified by the foreman under whose orders the plaintiff was acting that he was to ascend the cars by a ladder; and it appears from the evidence that no such notice was given.

2. The defendant contends that the plaintiff was negligent in not giving the notice himself. But he was a subordinate employe, and it was for the jury to say whether in the execution of the orders given him he might not properly have relied upon those under whom he was acting to see to it that the orders could be executed in safety.

3. It is said that the case does not come within the statute which makes a railroad company liable to an employe for an injury caused by the negligence of a co-employe. The statute in question is section 1307 of the Code. It provides for such liability, when the injury is sustained by the negligence of co-employes, and the “negligence is in any manner connected with the use and operation of any railway...