Warn v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co.
| Citation | 126 N.W. 1104,149 Iowa 450 |
| Parties | GEO. R. WARN v. CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant |
| Decision Date | 08 July 1910 |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Marshall District Court.--HON. J. M. PARKER, Judge.
ACTION to recover damages for personal injuries resulting to the minor son of plaintiff from being thrown out of a buggy by reason of the frightening of the horse attached thereto while said son was attempting to drive across the track of defendant's road in the city of Marshalltown at a street intersection; the allegations of negligence being that the engine and cars of the defendant which frightened the horse were operated at an unlawful rate of speed, and without the giving of the signals required by statute and ordinance. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and from judgment on such verdict defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Carr Carr & Evans and Carney & Carney, for appellant.
Theo. F. Bradford and R. E. Johnson, for appellee.
The minor son of plaintiff for injury to whom this action is brought, accompanied by a younger brother, was driving a single horse in a buggy westward along Nevada Street in the city of Marshalltown on which street there are tracks of the defendant railway occupying the north half of the street, and on reaching Eighth Avenue, running at a right angle with Nevada Street, he turned to the north, as alleged in the petition, in order to cross the tracks of the defendant road and proceed up Eighth Avenue. The two boys, who were the only witnesses for plaintiff as to what happened, testified that they had crossed the first track and were approaching the second when three cars backed by an engine came upon them from the west, and their horse becoming frightened swung around suddenly to the west towards the approaching cars and threw the older boy out of the buggy, causing his arm to be broken. It is for this injury that action is brought. These two witnesses testified also that the engine and cars approached the crossing at a higher rate of speed than permitted by statute or ordinance, and without ringing of the bell on the engine as required by the city ordinance on the subject, and their testimony tended to show that if they had been aware of the approach of the engine and cars they could have avoided the accident. The testimony of witnesses for the defendant not only tended to negative the unlawful speed of the engine and cars and the failure to give a signal or warning, but also tended to show that at the time the horse was frightened the vehicle had not yet reached Eighth Avenue but was being driven westward along Nevada Street south of the defendant's tracks, and that the horse being frightened jumped south and ran southwest striking a switch stand which was on the south line of Nevada Street and east of Eighth Avenue, and that it was at this point that the accident occurred. There is some corroboration of the testimony of defendant's witnesses as to the place of the accident in the testimony of the boy who was not injured, for according to his account of what happened the horse did bring the buggy into collision with the switch stand, although the injured boy was thrown out...
To continue reading
Request your trial