Romick v. Chi., R.I. & P.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 December 1883 |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
| Parties | ROMICK, ADM'R, ETC., v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. R. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Madison circuit court.
Action to recover for personal injuries, sustained by plaintiff's intestate, while in the service of defendant as a brakeman, which resulted in his death. The cause was tried to a jury, and upon the close of plaintiff's evidence the circuit court directed the jury to return a verdict for defendant, whereon a judgment was entered. Plaintiff appeals.A. R. Smalley and Bryan & Bryan, for appellant.
Wright, Cummins & Wright, for appellee.
1. The plaintiff's intestate was in the employment of defendant as a brakeman upon its railroad. In coupling a dining car to the “caboose” of a freight train, to be drawn from Atlantic to Council Bluffs, he received injuries that caused his death. The “caboose” had a “bumper” of ordinary construction, and the dining car was provided with a Miller's coupler. The deceased went between the cars, where he made the attempt to couple them, but the “bumper,” upon striking Miller's coupler, slipped aside and ran under the platform of the dining car, crushing deceased, and killing him almost instantly. It is alleged that defendant's employes were negligent upon various grounds; one only need be mentioned, namely, in signaling the person in charge of the engine to move backward in order to make the coupling, while deceased was between the cars preparing therefor, without a signal from him.
2. The evidence shows that prior to the attempt to couple the cars the train was backed and stopped so that the “caboose” was within six feet of the dining car when deceased went between the cars to make the coupling, which was delayed by reason of difficulty in removing a coupling-pin, and the necessity of procuring another. The evidence tended to prove that in making a coupling of cars of the construction of those in question, the person charged with the duty usually stands between the cars, and the cars are moved only upon his signals, and that the deceased did not signal or in any manner direct the train to be backed when he received the fatal injury. The circuit court directed the jury to find a verdict for defendant upon the grounds that the evidence failed to show that defendant was negligent, and did show that the deceased contributed to his injury by his own negligence. We think in the ruling there is manifest error.
3. The evidence tended to show...
To continue reading
Request your trial