Wesley v. Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 30 January 1892 |
| Parties | JOHN WESLEY, Appellee, v. CHICAGO, ST. PAUL & KANSAS CITY RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Delaware District Court.--HON. D. J. LINEHAN, Judge.
ACTION to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been caused by negligence on the part of the defendant. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Fouke & Lyon and Lusk & Bunn, for appellant.
Blair Dunham & Norris, for appellee.
In September, 1888, the defendant operated a railway in Delaware and Buchanan counties. At a point in the county last named, a short distance west of the Delaware county line, the railway crossed a highway at a place known as the "Sliter Crossing." The general direction of the highway in the vicinity of the crossing was from east to west. The railway east of the crossing was south of the highway, and approached it on a line which curved northward, its direction at the crossing being north of west. The angle made by the railway with the highway from the crossing eastward was acute, and a wagon on the highway fifty feet east of the center of the crossing would be but twelve or fifteen feet from the rails. On the first day of the month named, the plaintiff approached the crossing from the east for the purpose of going to a point southwest of Lamont to put up hay. He was driving a team of horses attached to a wagon, on which there was a hay-rack and was sitting on the rack in such a manner that his face was turned to the northwest. His team went onto the crossing, but, before he could get beyond it, the wagon and horses were struck by the engine of a passenger train of the defendant which approached from the east. One of the horses was killed, the other seriously hurt, the wagon and hay-rack were destroyed, and personal injuries were inflicted upon the plaintiff. He seeks to recover compensation for the injuries he there received and the loss of his property. The defendant is alleged to have been negligent in permitting its track to cross the highway at too acute an angle; in not constructing approaches of sufficient width; in having deep ditches at the sides of the approaches; and in running its train too rapidly, and approaching the crossing without proper signals at the time of the accident. The defendant denies the alleged negligence, and avers that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the plaintiff.
I. The plaintiff testified, in effect, that he was driving slowly as he approached the crossing; that, when he was from one hundred fifty to two hundred feet distant from it, he looked for the train, but did not see it; that, when he was within forty or fifty feet of the track, at the foot of the approach, he slackened the speed of his team, and again looked back and listened, but could neither see nor hear the train; and that he then attempted to cross, driving his team so as to go over the rails at as great an angle as possible to prevent the wheels from sliding on the rails, and that while he was so engaged the accident occurred. He further testified that no bell was rung nor whistle blown, and that his view of the railway over which the train approached was obstructed by weeds, bushes and trees which had been permitted to grow and remain upon the ground between the highway and the railroad track. The testimony of the plaintiff as to the nature of the crossing, the obstructions to sight, and the failure of the defendant to give any signal of the approach of the train, is corroborated by that of several witnesses, who appear to be credible, and to have been fully informed as to the facts. There is also testimony which...
To continue reading
Request your trial