Case ID: iowa_67/html/0075-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Adams, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Luce v. The Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha R’y Co.
    1. Railroads: employe in coal-house: injury by negligence oe co-employe: company not liable. One employed in a railroad coal-house, and injured by the negligence of a co-employe while loading coal upon a car, oannot recover of the company, because the injury in such case is not in any manner connected with the use and operation of the railroad. Foley v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R’y Co., 64 Town, 644, and Malone v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R'y Co., 61 Id., 326, and 65 Id., 417, followed.
    
      Appeal from O'Brien District Court.
    
    Saturday, September 26.
    Action to recover for a personal injury. There was a trial to a jury, and verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.
    
      J. H. <& C. M. Swan, for appellant.
    
      Alfred Morton, for appellee.
   Adams, J.

At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence, the defeiidant moved for an instruction to render a verdict in its favor. The court refused to so instruct, and the defendant assigns the refusal as error.

The undisputed evidence shows that the plaintiff was employed in a coal-house of the defendant. While so employed hoisting coal for the purpose of filling a car, a co-employe so negligently managed a crane which they were using in the work that it struck the plaintiff’s arm and broke it. The danger arising from the use of the crane does not appear to have been greater or less by the fact that it was used in loading a railroad car, nor does it appear that the plaintiff while engaged in his duties wt\s exposed to any danger from the operation of the road. The case comes within Malone v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R’y Co., 61 Iowa, 326 and 65 Id., 417, and Foley v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R’y Co., 64 Id., 644. In our opinion the evidence showed no liability, and the defendant’s motion to instruct should have been sustained.

Reversed.