Home/Supreme Court of Iowa/McNaughton v. Illinois Central Railway Co.

McNaughton v. Illinois Central Railway Co.

113 N.W. 844, 136 Iowa 177
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedNovember 13, 1907
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 113 N.W. 844 (McNaughton v. Illinois Central 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
McNaughton v. Illinois Central Railway Co., 113 N.W. 844, 136 Iowa 177 (iowa 1907).

Opinion

Ladd, J.

In the middle of the forenoon of May 29, 1902, plaintiff, with her husband, was on the way to defendant’s depot at Waterloo for the purpose of taking a train [178]*178to Charles City. When near by her stocking became loosened, and, as tbe train was then on tbe track, sbe, by her bus-band’s direction, entered tbe depot in order to go to tbe toilet room, while be procured tbe tickets. Tbe plan of tbe building will aid in understanding tbe situation. (See page 179.)

Sbe entered tbe door at A and immediately opened tbe one at B, and, supposing it-to be tbe door to tbe toilet room, stepped in and fell to tbe bottom of tbe stairway to the basement. To reach tbe door, she made her way through a gathering of people by whom the word “ basement ” painted upon it was obscured, and entered sidewise.- On tbe door of tbe toilet room was painted tbe appropriate designation, but this, as will appear from tbe annexed plan, was somewhat obscured from view by its location. As will be observed, there was a window to tbe space set apart for tbe basement stairway, so that it was well lighted, and no defect in tbe stairway is alleged. Tbe contention of appellant is that tbe company was bound to anticipate that persons unfamiliar with tbe premises or in a burry, as they are likely to be in taking a train, might unwittingly enter tbe basement door, as plaintiff did, under tbe erroneous supposition that it was a toilet room or tbe exit to some other apartment, and therefore that, in tbe exercise of due care, tbe door should have been kept locked, leaving it unlocked, under tbe circumstances disclosed, is alleged to have been negligent.

In tbe maintenance of its station, ordinary care only was exacted of defendant. Hiatt v. Railway, 96 Iowa, 169; Moreland v. Railway, 141 Mass. 31 (6 N. E. 225). And, as tbe public is invited to tbe premises, this requires that they be kept free from traps and pitfalls such as are likely to cause injury to those having business with tbe company or persons attending them. Montgomery & Eufaula Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 77 Ala. 448 (54 Am. Rep. 72) ; Matthieson v. Railway, 125 Iowa, 90. But it can hardly be said that a closed door to tbe stairway down to a basement with door knob and catch constitutes a trap or pitfall. Every precau-

[179]*179 uH9BEvBTrmVW5DQKIDlEVb5vw7BCyebW5Vd3A6sBFiPQatqx3BNIvIDfq1Evo8beStnhE0KwxrWO

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

Related

Lattner v. Immaculate Conception Church
121 N.W.2d 639 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1963)
Fahey v. Sayer
99 A.2d 624 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1953)
Boyce v. Brewington
158 P.2d 124 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1945)
Lasell v. Tri-States Theatre Corp.
11 N.W.2d 36 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1943)
Standard Oil Co. of Ind. v. Henninger
196 N.E. 706 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1935)
Dunn v. First Nat. Bank of Portland
39 P.2d 944 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1934)
Dehn v. Buck
206 N.W. 435 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1925)
Du Rocher v. Teutonia Motor Car Co.
205 N.W. 921 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1925)
Kidder v. Hall
251 S.W. 497 (Texas Supreme Court, 1923)
Keeran v. Spurgeon Mercantile Co.
194 Iowa 1240 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1922)
Downing v. Merchants National Bank of Greene
192 Iowa 1250 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1921)
Johnson v. Smith
194 P. 997 (Washington Supreme Court, 1921)
Hertz v. Advertiser Co.
78 So. 794 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918)
Illinois Central Railroad v. Sanderson
192 S.W. 869 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1917)
Drummy v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad
133 N.W. 655 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1911)
Speck v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
122 N.W. 497 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
113 N.W. 844, 136 Iowa 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcnaughton-v-illinois-central-railway-co-iowa-1907.