Bucklew v. Central Iowa Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Jasper District Court. The plaintiff was a brakeman on a freight train, and claims to have been injured by reason of the negligence of the engineer. and fireman in failing to obey a signal given by him to stop the train, so that he could with safety make a coupling it was his duty to make. The plaintiff claims to have been free from negligence on his part. Trial by jury and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtSeevers, J.
There was evidence tending to show the following facts: There was a freight train, consisting of an engine and several freight cars, which was moving north, for the purpose of coupling thereto a car which was standing on a side track, and it was the plaintiff’s duty to make such coupling. Eor this purpose the train was under his charge and control. As the train moved north, the plaintiff preceded it a short distance, and, because there was no link in the south end of the car standing on the track with which to make the coupling, he gave a signal to stop the train, and, without waiting to see…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- McAunich v. Mississippi & Missouri RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1866
- Kroy v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1871
- Beems v. C., R. I. & P. R. Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1882
- Steele v. Central RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
- Indianapolis, Bloomington, & Western Railway Co. v. CarrIndiana Supreme Court · 1871
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. LightheiserIndiana Supreme Court · 1906
- Anderson v. RitterbuschSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
- Bedford Quarries Co. v. BoughIndiana Supreme Court · 1907
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. MontgomeryIndiana Supreme Court · 1898
- Dillon v. Great Northern Railway Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1909
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.