Wallace v. Chi., St. P., M. & O. R. Co.
Decision Date | 12 December 1885 |
Citation | 25 N.W. 772,67 Iowa 547 |
Parties | WALLACE v. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. R. CO. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Woodbury district court.
The plaintiff, who was a train conductor on defendant's railroad, claims damages for a personal injury which he alleges he received by reason of the negligence of the defendant in failing to surface up and fill in earth between the ties upon which the iron rails of the track were laid. There was a trial by jury. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals.J. N. & C. M. Swan, for appellant, Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co.
S. J. Quinny and Isaac Pendleton, for appellee, A. Wallace.
The plaintiff was the conductor of a transfer train engaged in moving cars across the Missouri river between Sioux City, Iowa, and Covington, Nebraska, by means of boats, and in making up trains and switching cars upon transfer tracks and side tracks. These transfer tracks were not permanent structures. By reason of the changing of the channel and banks of the river the landing of the boats and the transfer tracks were required to be frequently moved. The tracks were laid down in a temporary manner, and the spaces between the ties were not filled up, and the ties were not placed at uniform distances from each other. The plaintiff claims that in attempting to make a coupling on one of these tracks at Covington, and while the cars to be coupled were in motion, his foot caught between two ties, and in attempting to extricate it he involuntarily threw up his hand in such a position that it came between the draw-heads of said cars, and he was severely injured. He was in full command of the train, and the cars were moving by his direction, and he makes no complaint of any negligence of the engineer or other train-men; and he admits that he was aware of the condition of the track. But he alleges that the defendant was negligent in the construction of the track, and that he made complaint of the track to the proper officers of the company, and that they promised to repair and properly construct it, and that the injury was received by reason of the negligence of the defendant to keep its promise to make the proper repairs. The injury was such that it became necessary to amputate the third and fourth fingers of the left hand. Soon after the injury the plaintiff resumed work for the company, and continued in said employment for several months.
It is urged by counsel for appellant that the evidence does not show that the plaintiff made any complaint of the condition of the track in question to any officer of the defendant who had any authority over repairs upon the road, and that the evidence shows, without conflict, that the injury was properly attributable to the plaintiff's own carelessness and negligence. We do not deem it necessary to determine these questions, because, in our opinion, the judgment must be reversed upon another ground, which we will now proceed to consider.
2. The defendant, as a full defense to the action, pleaded that in February, 1883, several months after the injury was received, the plaintiff and the defendant made a full and fair settlement of all claims for damages by reason of said injury, and the defendant, in pursuance of said settlement, paid the sum agreed upon, to the full satisfaction of the plaintiff. Said settlement and the release were in writing, signed by the plaintiff. These instruments were introduced in evidence. It is unnecessary to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pope v. Bailey-Marsh Company
... ... negligence to claim that same was not binding on him," ... should have been granted and the jury so charged. Wallace ... v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. 67 Iowa 547, 25 N.W ... 772; Pederson v. Seattle Consol. Street R. Co. 6 ... Wash. 202, 33 P. 351, 34 P ... ...
-
Dovich v. Chief Consolidated Mining Co.
... ... & S ... F. R. Co. v. Chester , 41 Okla. 369, 138 P. 150; ... Bessey v. M., St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. , 154 ... Wis. 334, 141 N.W. 244; Wallace v. C., St. P., ... M. & O. Ry. , 67 Iowa 547, 25 N.W. 772; Wallace ... v. Skinner , 15 Wyo. 233, 88 [53 Utah 534] P. 221; ... Shaffer v ... ...
-
Christensen v. Harris
...of plaintiffs as to its contents." Under such circumstances, it was held that defendant was guilty of inexcusable neglect. In the Wallace case, the signing did not claim that the contents were purposely misrepresented in the reading, or that he was deceived by any sleight of hand, legerdema......
-
Bjorklund v. Seattle Elec. Co.
...trust or confidence existing between the parties appeared, and that the terms and conditions of the writing were equally open to both. In Chicago, St. P., etc., Co. v. Belliwith, 83 F. 437, 28 C. C. A. 358, the party who signed the contract testified that he did not ask any one to read it t......