Quackenbush v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 15 December 1887 |
| Citation | 35 N.W. 523,73 Iowa 458 |
| Parties | QUACKENBUSH v. THE CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN R'Y CO |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Hamilton District Court--HON. S. M. WEAVER, Judge.
ACTION to recover for a personal injury, alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff while a passenger on one of the defendant's train. There was a trial to a jury, and verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.
AFFIRMED.
Hubbard Clark & Dawley, for appellant.
W. J Covil and W. Martin, for appellee.
The plaintiff was riding in a caboose. A stationary seat had been provided around the side of the car for the accommodation of passengers, but the plaintiff, at the time of the accident, was sitting in a chair. The caboose was a part of a train standing upon the track. Other cars, somewhat heavily loaded, were brought upon the track to be coupled to the part of the train which included the caboose. The moving cars were thrown back with such force against the standing cars that the plaintiff, while sitting in a chair in the caboose, was thrown against the stove, and received an injury upon the nose, which is the injury for which the action is brought.
I. The defendant insists that the verdict is without support, in that there was no evidence tending to show negligence on the defendant's part. The plaintiff's allegation of negligence, as contained in his petition, is in these words: The defendant does not deny that the plaintiff was thrown from his seat upon the stove by reason of the moving cars being thrown against the standing cars; but it insists that there was nothing in this tending to show negligence. The defendant's contract was to carry the plaintiff safely, if it could do so in the exercise of the strictest care. Now, the evidence shows that the moving cars could have easily been moved back in such a way as not to injure the persons in the caboose. We think that the finding that the defendant was guilty of negligence is abundantly supported.
II. The next position taken by the defendant is that the undisputed evidence shows that the plaintiff, by his own negligence, contributed to the accident. The fact relied upon is that the plaintiff was sitting in a chair. It is said that a chair was a dangerous thing to sit in in such a place, and that the plaintiff should have avoided it, especially as abundant sitting accommodations had been provided by stationary seats around the sides of the car. It is not to be denied, we think, that, in case of any sudden and violent propulsion of the caboose, a chair, not fastened to the floor or otherwise secured, was less safe than the seats around the sides; but it is not easy to discover what the chair was in the car for if not as a seat. We think that the plaintiff was justified in inferring that it was placed there as a seat, and, if so, that the defendant would so manage its train in switching as not to throw a passenger or any other person from the chair upon the stove. We cannot say that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
III. Evidence was introduced by the plaintiff for the purpose of showing that the injury which he received upon his nose had produced catarrh. The defendant asked the court to instruct the jury that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant them in finding that the plaintiff's catarrh was caused by the injury complained of....
To continue reading
Request your trial