Legal Opinion

Handelun v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern R'y Co.

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided March 4, 1887PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Appeal from Linn District Court. AotioN for damages for a personal injury sustained by plaintiff while in defendant’s employ as a laborer on a construction train. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

1Opinion of the CourtReed, J.

The train on which plaintiff was employed was used for hauling sand and gravel from a pit, and distributing the same along the main track of defendant’s road for ballast. At the time of the accident, the .train was at the pit, being-loaded. A quantity of sand had fallen upon the track in front of the engine, and plaintiff and one or two other employes were directed by the foreman to remove it. Before they had finished the work of removing it, however, the engine was put in motion, and started forward. On one side of the track there was a bank of sand about eight feet high. The space between…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Deppe v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1872
  2. Crowley v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern R'y Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1885

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Des Moines Nat. BankCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1906
  2. Baltimore City Passenger Ry. Co. v. NugentCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1897
  3. Parmenter v. City of MarionSupreme Court of Iowa · 1901
  4. Akeson v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1898
  5. Butler v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1893

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API