Swanson v. Keokuk & Western Railroad Co.
| Decision Date | 11 April 1902 |
| Parties | J. H. SWANSON AND W. T. SWANSON v. KEOKUK & WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Appanoose District Court.--HON. FRANK W. EICHELBERGER Judge.
ACTION to recover damages caused by fire. Trial to a jury, and verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs. The defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Baker & Baker for appellant.
Vermillion & Valentine for appellees.
The plaintiffs seek to recover damages caused by fire alleged to have been set by the defendant's passing train. At the time the fire started, a heavy freight train was passing over the road through the plaintiff's farm. There is a heavy grade at the point in question, and at this time the train was handled by two engines--one at the head end and one pushing in the rear. The defendant called witnesses who testified that both engines were equipped with the most modern and best known appliances for arresting sparks, and that both had been thoroughly inspected and found in perfect order before starting from Centerville on the trip in question, some eight miles from the place of the fire. It was also shown that the engineers were competent men. This testimony was uncontradicted, save by the facts and circumstances shown by the plaintiffs touching the origin and spread of the fire; and the appellant now insists that the verdict was not supported by the evidence because of this positive testimony on the part of its witnesses. The fire started when this train was passing, and was seen by the trainmen. The helping engine dropped back after the train had been pushed over the hill, and the men in charge thereof stopped it and made an effort to put out the fire, but without success. The wind was blowing rather strong from the south, and the fire started on the north side of the track and ran rapidly north. In passing the point where the fire started one or both of the engines were working hard, as indicated by the exhaust. One of the plaintiffs testifies that he examined the premises to find where the fire started, and that he found coal cinders at the south edge of the burned grass, right under the right of way fence, and that the larges cinder found was about the size of the end of his thumb. With this record before us, it is impossible to say, as a matter of law, that the verdict is without support in the evidence. There is ample evidence in support of the claim that the fire was set by one of the engines, and, when this is shown the presumption arises that it was caused by the negligence of the company. In addition to this legal presumption, the jury had before it facts and circumstances tending to support the presumption. The fact that one cinder, at least, was too large to pass through the engine netting if in the condition testified to by the defendant's witnesses, and the fact that one or both engines were working heavily at the time, were properly for the consideration of the jury in determining whether the engines were in the condition claimed for them, and whether they were at the time properly operated under all the circumstances shown. Greenfield v. Railway Co., 83 Iowa 270.
But it is contended that the verdict is conclusively shown to be the result of prejudice because of answers given to special interrogatories asked by the defendant. In answer to those the jury found that the engines were not equipped as it was claimed they were; that they had not been inspected as stated, and found in good order; that the engines were not carefully operated at the time in question; and that the engineers were not skillful and careful at the time the fire was set out; and that the fire was set out because of lack of proper skill and care on the part of the engineers. As we understand the record, the trial court was not asked to set aside any of these special findings, and, if it had been, we do not see how it could have done so under the evidence and the peculiar construction of some of the questions. For instance, No. 4 asks if the engines were being operated by skillful and careful engineers at the time the fire was set out by the engines. By finding that the engineers were not then careful, the question could be answered in the negative, as it was. The same thought was incorporated in No. 6, and was answered in the same way. There is evidence supporting these special findings, and nothing therein indicating to our minds passion or prejudice.
II. In fixing the value of the plaintiff's farm, a witness testified as to the price paid for it. There was no error in this. It tended, at least, to show the market value.
III. The cross-examination of several witnesses called by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carnego v. Crescent Coal Co.
...price of articles of personal property, and from that, with information as to age and wear, the jury might estimate values." In Swanson v. Railway, 116 Iowa 304, the holding that a witness might testify "to the price paid for land as tending to show its market value." In Richmond v. Railway......
-
Carnego v. Crescent Coal Co.
...articles of personal property, and from that, with information as to age and wear, the jury might estimate values.” In Swanson v. Railway, 116 Iowa, 304, 89 N. W. 1088, the holding was that a witness might testify “to the price paid for land as tending to show its market value.” In Richmond......
-
Wiley v. Dean Land Co.
... ... error in overruling the objection. Swanson v. Ry., ... 116 Iowa 304; Dorr v. Cory, 108 Iowa 725, 78 N.W ... 682; ... ...
-
Wiley v. Dean Land Co.
...under investigation is competent evidence of its market value then, and there was no error in overruling the objection. Swanson v. Railway, 116 Iowa, 304, 89 N. W. 1088;Dorr v. Cory, 108 Iowa, 725, 78 N. W. 682;Carnego v. Crescent Coal Co., 164 Iowa, 552, 146 N. W. 38. [3] III. Counsel for ......