Rhodes v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.

• Decision Date: 12 March 1917
• Docket Number: 31237
• Parties: CLAUDE B. RHODES, Appellant, v. CHICAGO; ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY et al., Appellees
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

161 N.W. 652

179 Iowa 599

CLAUDE B. RHODES, Appellant, v. CHICAGO; ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY et al., Appellees

No. 31237

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

March 12, 1917

Appeal from Polk District Court.--W. H. McHENRY, Judge.

ACTION for damages for personal injuries. At the close of plaintiff's evidence, there was a directed verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Thos A. Cheshire, for appellant.

F. W Sargent, J. G. Gamble and J. H. Johnson, for appellees.

EVANS J. GAYNOR, C. J., LADD and SALINGER, JJ., concur.

OPINION

EVANS, J.

At the time of the accident in question, the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant, and was engaged as a trucker or freight handler. He had been engaged in this service but a short time prior to the accident, but had had many years of experience in various lines of railroad labor, and was by observation familiar with the methods and duties of a trucker. On the morning of the accident, the plaintiff was one of a crew consisting of a checker and caller and four truckers who were engaged in transporting the contents of a box car standing at one end of a platform into another car standing at the other end of the same platform. The plaintiff was engaged in trucking a steel rail, estimated at from 10 to 18 feet long. He used a two-wheel truck, with the ordinary handles and chisel. The rail was laid upon the truck so that the center thereof was approximately over the chisel, and one end extended forward between the handles. The plaintiff pushed his truck into the first car and pushed the same into proper position under the rail, one end of which was held up by the checker and caller. He transported the rail without incident from the first car to the second. His accident happened while he was pulling his truck into the second car. Between the car and the platform was a space of about 18 inches, which was bridged over by a steel bridge of platform. One edge of the steel bridge rested upon the platform, and the other upon the floor of the car. The plaintiff went backwards into the car, pulling the truck by the handles, rather than pushing the same. The steel bridge was about a quarter of an inch thick. This made a corresponding drop for the wheels of the truck when they passed from the bridge to the floor of the car. The plaintiff so turned his truck that one wheel made this drop slightly in advance of the other. This change of level caused a slipping of the rail against one of the handles. The plaintiff's hand was upon the handle, and his thumb was thereby broken. In part through subsequent mishaps of treatment, he has suffered a serious and permanent injury. The charges of negligence are, briefly: (1) Failure to warn; (2) failure to furnish adequate help; (3) failure to properly equip the truck; (4) failure to promulgate rules governing the conduct of the plaintiff.

The work, the tool and the danger incident thereto were all of such simple and obvious character as to leave little room to claim that any duty of warning rested upon the defendant. Nor do we find anything in the evidence which would justify a finding that there was any violation of duty to promulgate rules. It is not claimed that the plaintiff was injured through any act of a fellow servant which could have been avoided by the promulgation of proper rules. All that is claimed is that rules should have been promulgated for governing the conduct of the plaintiff himself. Ordinarily the duty to promulgate rules arises only when there is a plurality of...