Wible v. Burlington, C.R. & N.R. Co.
Decision Date | 26 October 1899 |
Citation | 80 N.W. 679,109 Iowa 557 |
Parties | LEWIS A. WIBLE v. THE BURLINGTON, CEDAR RAPIDS & NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Linn District Court.--HON. WILLIAM G. THOMPSON, Judge.
ACTION for damages. Judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
J. C Leonard and S. K. Tracy for appellant.
Smith Kirk & Smith for appellee.
The only question raised on this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. The accident occurred at Ellsworth, Minn., a division station of the defendant, where its road branches to Sioux Falls, S. D., and to Watertown, of the same state. A round house with five stalls was located there, and a master mechanic had supervision of the repairs. An engine with what is called a "stub pilot" in front and a tank with the same kind of a pilot behind, was used for switching, and required the services of a day and a night crew, each composed of five men. The engine was also frequently used to haul cars to Sibley, Iowa, a distance of about sixteen miles, and to Luverne, Minn., fourteen miles away. Iron handholds about eighteen or twenty inches long, and standing out about three inches, were attached to each end of a timber eight feet long, forming the base of the pilot. This left a space of about three and one-half feet over the main part of the pilot without a handhold. The particular negligence charged is the failing to have a continuous handhold or bar entirely across the end of the tank. Just previous to the accident, the engine was backing with the rear of the tank towards cars to which the coupling was about to be made. The plaintiff having stepped on the board, about five inches wide, at the foot of the pilot, in order to get in position to adjust the link and pin, moved his right foot between the left and the pilot, and, in so doing, struck or stepped on a part of the air hose lying on the footboard. In his own words: The witnesses agree that he should have gotten on where he did in order to make the coupling, so that no attention need be given to the suggestion that it would have been safer to have done so elsewhere. It is insisted that stepping on...
To continue reading
Request your trial