Raben v. Cent. Iowa Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 20 December 1887
• Citation: 35 N.W. 645,73 Iowa 579
• Parties: RABEN v. CENTRAL IOWA RY. CO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

73 Iowa 579

35 N.W. 645

RABEN

v.CENTRAL IOWA RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

December 20, 1887.

Appeal from district court, Keokuk county; D. RYAN, Judge.

Action by James B. Raben to recover for personal injuries sustained by his wife through the negligence of plaintiff's employes, while she was getting off of a car in which she was a passenger. There was a judgment upon a verdict for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.A. C. Daly and Geo. D. Woodin, for appellant.

Sampson & Brown, for appellee.

BECK, J.

1. This action is brought to recover by the husband for injuries sustained by his wife, who had brought a suit in her own name to recover for the same injuries. A judgment in favor of the wife in her action was reversed by this court. See 34 N. W. Rep. 621. The petition of plaintiff in this case alleges that his wife was a passenger upon a car on defendant's railroad, having her own two small children with her. When she reached her place of destination, she proceeded to leave the car with her children, who were taken from the car, when the train began to move, through the negligence of defendant's employes, without allowing her sufficient time to get off, and, in attempting to do so, she was thrown down and injured. Plaintiff alleges, (referring to his wife getting off of the car:) “The conductor did not help her, nor offer to do so, nor advise her that it was not safe to get off, wherefore, he says that the said injury was caused by the negligence and want of care of the conductor,” etc. The evidence tended to support the allegations of the plaintiff's petition.

2. The district court, in presenting the issues of the case to the jury, among other things, stated that the petition alleges that the conductor negligently failed to see whether plaintiff's wife had alighted from the car, and caused the train to start before she had time to do so safely, and that “defendant failed to assist her to alight,” thereby causing the injuries. In the third instruction the court directs the jury that, to entitle plaintiff to recover, he must show by affirmative evidence, among other things, “that such injuries were caused directly by the negligence of defendant's employes, as substantially alleged.” In the fourth instruction the court directed the jury that it was the conductor's duty “to place her [plaintiff's wife] or enable her to alight in safety on the platform.” In these instructions the court plainly directs the jury that it was the conductor's duty to assist plaintiff's wife to alight from the car. This court has held the law to be different, and that no such duty rests upon the conductor. Raben v. Railway Co., 34 N. W. Rep....