124 Iowa 462 | Iowa | 1904
Out of the accident referred to in Wagner v. C. & N. W. R. R., 122 Iowa, 360, this case arose.
He was clearly a trespasser in these yards, or at least the defendant’s employes were not bound to keep a lookout for people who might be trying to catch hats which had been blown off by the wind. In this case the trial court should have sustained defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. There was no evidence whatever that defendant’s employes saw the boy. Indeed, it is doubtful if he could have been seen by them in time to have stopped the train after he had placed himself in a dangerous situation. There was no evidence showing any liability on the part of the defendant. As sustaining our conclusions, see Heiss v. R. R., 103 Iowa, 591; Ills. Cent. R. R. v. Eicher, 202 Ill. 556 (67 N. E. Rep. 377); Mabbott v. Ill. Cent. R. R., 116 Iowa, 491; A., T. & S. F. R. R. v. Schwindt, (Kan.) 72 Pac. Rep. 573. Moreover, the same errors were committed in this case as in Wagner v. C. & N. W. R. R. Co., supra, and the judgment must in any event be, and it is, reversed.