Bryce v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from, Cedar Rapids Superior Court. — Hon. J. H. Bothrock, Judge. Action to recover for a personal injury. Judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals. —
1Opinion of the CourtSherwin, J.
The petition is in two counts, one declaring that the defendant was negligent as a matter of law, because it had not equipped its switch engine with automatic couplers, and the other averring that the coupler on the engine was old, antiquated and defective. The answer raised an issue as to both counts, and further alleged as to the second that the plaintiff had assumed the risk incident to the use of the antiquated and defective-coupler. The trial court did not construe the automatic, coupler statute, or instruct the jury in relation thereto, but submitted the case on the general question of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- East St. Louis Connecting Railway Co. v. O'HaraIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. MansonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1884
- Metzgar v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1888
- Mayor, Etc., of N.Y. v. . Third Ave. R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1889
3Cited by5 opinions
- Stephenson v. Sheffield Brick & Tile Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1911
- Ashcraft v. Davenport Locomotive WorksSupreme Court of Iowa · 1910
- Haines v. SpencerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1909
- American Locomotive Co. v. WhiteCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1913
- Blanchard v. Detroit & Mackinac Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1905