Saeugling v. Scandrett

• Decision Date: 18 March 1941
• Docket Number: 45446.
• Citation: Saeugling v. Scandrett, 230 Iowa 153, 296 N.W. 787 (Iowa 1941)
• Parties: SAEUGLING v. SCANDRETT et al.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

296 N.W. 787

230 Iowa 153

SAEUGLING v. SCANDRETT et al.

No. 45446.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 18, 1941

Appeal from District Court, Clayton County; W. L. Eichendorf, Judge.

This is an action at law for damages sustained in a collision of the automobile, in which plaintiff was riding, with a locomotive.The answer was a denial and an allegation that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the icy condition of the pavement over which the plaintiff was traveling.The only ground of negligence submitted was the failure to give a crossing signal.Trial to a jury resulted in favor of the plaintiff.From judgment on verdict defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

C. F Murphy, of Elkader, and Hughes, O'Brien & Hughes, of Des Moines, for appellants.

J. J Hyde, of Elkader, and Alex Holmes, of Strawberry Point, for appellee.

SAGER Justice.

For convenience we shall speak herein of the defendant in the singular, the railroad company being the party in interest.

About 2 o'clock on the morning of January 15, 1938, plaintiff with four companions was returning from a dance at Guttenberg, Melvin Radloff driving.Plaintiff sat next to him with her brother at her right.They were approaching from the south the crossing where the accident happened.

It was a clear, cold night with moonlight so bright that the car could be driven without artificial light.The driver was anticipating the approach of a train.He, like the others was familiar with the crossing and surrounding conditions including the obstructions to the view as the crossing was approached.All were familiar with the icy condition of the pavement in the town of Monona where the accident occurred, having passed that way to the dance from which they were returning.

All the occupants of the car were aware that a train was due at or about that time and were alert and attentive for signals but heard none.The windows of the car were clear of frost and the left front window was down to make more readily audible any warning of an approaching train.As they approached the track a heavy freight train was moving out onto the main line from a sidetrack about 1,000 feet distant.It had been there awaiting the passing of the westbound passenger train.There is a dispute as to its speed.Plaintiff's testimony fixes it as high as 25 miles per hour, while defendant's witnesses put it as low as 4 to 6 miles per hour.

Beginning about 80 feet south of crossing there was a descending grade to the track, a drop of 3 1/2 to 4 feet.When about 40 or 50 feet from the track, plaintiff and the driver saw the engine and the latter promptly applied all the braking power he had.Notwithstanding the brakes were in good condition, the speed of the car continued as it was, about 15 miles per hour.Had it not been for the icy condition of the pavement, the driver could have stopped before reaching the crossing.

In an attempt to escape, Radloff swung the car to the right but it slid into the side of the cowcatcher and was dragged a short distance.In the collision, the plaintiff sustained damages for which the jury awarded her $800.

It should be added that at a point beginning 80 feet south of the crossing the pavement was level and the driver of the car testified that had the signals been given he would have stopped back of that point on the level before proceeding down the incline as he did.In what has been said we do not overlook the fact that there is a distinct conflict in the testimony with reference to the facts narrated but the jury could have found as we have stated.

There is no claim of intoxication, negligence or reckless driving.Appellant's only complaint is that the court erred in overruling defendant's motion to direct on the ground that the proximate cause of the accident...