Home/Supreme Court of Iowa/Basham v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.

Basham v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.

178 Iowa 998
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedNovember 26, 1915
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 178 Iowa 998 (Basham v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Basham v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co., 178 Iowa 998 (iowa 1915).

Opinion

Weaver, J.

The deceased was in the employ of the defendant railway company as a locomotive engineer, and at the time of his death was operating an engine hauling a passenger train over defendant’s lino between Des Moines and Oelwein. On March 28, 1910, deceased left Des Moines with his train, which was due to arrive at Oelwein at 2:30 P. M. About half a mile from Oelwein, and on the line leading from Des Moines, is a switch for a track leading off from the main line into defendant’s yards. At the time in question, it is conceded that this switch was unlocked and open sufficiently to break the connection with the rails upon the main line. There was no one then present at the switch, and nothing to warn the deceased of the danger thus created, unless it were the position of the target. Evidently he did not discover the defect in time to stop, with the result that the engine was derailed and overturned, and the engineer so crushed that he died on the following day.

The issues as finally settled were as follows: Plaintiff, as the administrator of Spellman’s estate, alleges that the [1001]*1001death of the intestate was caused by defendant’s negligence in failing to maintain a reasonably safe track, and in carelessly leaving the switch open; and he demands a recovery of damages for the benefit of the widow, under the provisions of the act of Congress providing for recovery in such cases, where the deceased was engaged in the work of- interstate commerce. The defendant denies the claim, says the engineer was himself guilty of negligence, and that the right of action, if any, is barred by the statute of limitations. Further reference to the pleadings will be made in a later paragraph of the opinion.

At the close of the testimony, defendant’s motion for a directed verdict was denied. The jury returned a verdict for damages in plaintiff’s favor, and a special finding to the effect that the switch had been left open by the employes and agents of the defendant.

Spellman was an experienced engineer, and had been in the employ of the defendant for 22 years. At the time of his death, he was about 61 years old, had been married about 35 years, and was the father of three children, all of whom survived him, and had arrived at their majority. Prior to the bringing of this action, the children, being all the heirs at law of the deceased, united in a writing by which they assigned and transferred to the widow airf- and all interest which they had in the estate of their father, including therein all their right and interest in the claim for damages on account of his death.

Concerning the circumstances immediately attending the derailment of the engine, it is conceded that the switch was unlocked and partly open, causing the wheels to leave the track. The following cut is made from a photograph of the switch stand, and its inspection will make clear the situation.

From the top of the stand arose a rod or staff, only partially shown in the cut. At the top of the staff was a lamp for use at night, and below the lamp, a red arrow or pointer. [1003]*1003When properly set for the main line, the switeb was held in place by an iron plunger at the lower end of the staff, dropped into an opening of the frame or body of the stand. This opening was square in form, and the plunger was squared to fit into it. A lever or handle was attached to the upper end of the plunger, which lever, when the switch was closed, hung down upon the side of the stand. To work the switch, the operator lifted the handle, raising the plunger out of the socket; then, by swinging the lever horizontally, the switch points or ends' of the movable switch rails were carried around into connection with the main or side track, as might be desired. The mechanism of the stand was so adjusted that, when the switch was set for either line, the plunger would fit into the socket; but when lifted out, it required a swing of 90 degrees of the lever to bring it into position for the other connection, and allow the -plunger to again fit the socket. When in position for either track, the plunger, being in the socket, held the rails in connection; but if the lever, being lifted, was swung to any extent less than 90 degrees, the plunger, not being, in position for the socket, would rest on the top of the stand, and could not effectually prevent movement of the switch points. The staff carrying the lamp and arrow was so attached to the stand as to turn with the horizontal movement of- the lever; and, when the switch was fully opened for the side track, the arrow signal stood at right angles to the main track, and served as a'warning to train men approaching on the main line; but when the switch was set for the main line, the signal stood parallel with that line, and was invisible to the train men. It should also be said that the switch stand was provided with a padlock, by which, when not in'use, or unattended by a switchman, the lever could be secured to the side of the stand, as a protection against interference or misuse by unauthorized persons. It is obvious from the foregoing statement that if, as both parties seem to concede, the [1004]*1004switch, was -unlocked and the plunger lifted and resting out of place, the warning signal would not be fully displayed to the main track, the obscurity being in proportion to nearness of the lever to the main track connection. It was the opinion of railroad men, expressed on the trial, that the plunger, when in place, even though imlocked, could not be thrown out of the socket by the jar or vibration of passing trains; but it would seem clear to the nonexpert mind that, if the plunger was out and resting on the top of the stand when the engine was wrecked, the extent of the opening or displacement, as found by the witnesses after the wreck occurred, would not necessarily indicate the exact position of the switch points when the engine struck them. In other words, assuming that the switch was partly open and freed from the restraining effect of the plunger when in place, it would appear quite possible that the extent of the disconnection and displacement of the switch points may have been materially increased or diminished by the impact of'the engine as it struck and passed over the defect in the track. This feature of the situation was material in its bearing upon the circumstance, to which we shall again refer, that another engine had passed this switch in safety but a short time before the accident. It is also to be considered as bearing upon the extent to which the danger signal was displayed, and therefore upon the question whether the deceased was in the exercise of due care. The fireman, who alone was with the deceased at the time of the .accident, says that, as they approached the switch, at a distance of about 200 feet, he discovered something wrong with the target, and called the attention of the engineer, who looked, and applied the air brake, but too late to make the needed stop. He says:

[1002]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Iowa National Mutual Insurance v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
68 N.W.2d 920 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1955)
Johnson v. Johnson
65 N.W.2d 157 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1954)
Ross v. Robinson
147 P.2d 204 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1944)
Whetstine v. Moravec
291 N.W. 425 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1940)
Page v. Koss Construction Co.
257 N.W. 426 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1934)
Aita v. John Beno Co.
222 N.W. 886 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1928)
Halfpap v. Gruis
202 N.W. 592 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1925)
Critchlow v. Reliance Mutual Insurance
198 Iowa 1086 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1924)
Arnett v. Illinois Central Railroad
188 Iowa 540 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1920)
Lammars v. Chicago Great Western Railroad
187 Iowa 1277 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1919)
Chicago Great Western Railroad v. Basham
249 U.S. 164 (Supreme Court, 1919)
Calvert v. Des Moines City Railway Co.
184 Iowa 1238 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1918)
Nash v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad
169 N.W. 540 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1918)
Lewis v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Railway & Light Co.
183 Iowa 725 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1918)
Bridenstine v. Iowa City Electric Railway Co.
181 Iowa 1124 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1917)
Hunt v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
181 Iowa 845 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
178 Iowa 998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/basham-v-chicago-great-western-railway-co-iowa-1915.