
    Case v. The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R’y Co.
    1. Railroads: personal injury: negligence: burden of proof. One who' seeks to recover of another on the ground of negligence has the burden to establish the alleged negligence, as such negligence cannot be presumed from the fact of the accident resulting in the injury. (Compare Case v. Chicago, B. I. & P. B'y Co., 64 Iowa, 762.)
    
      Appeal from Polh Circuit Court.
    
    Friday, October 8.
    Action for a personal injury. There was a trial to a jury, and a peremptory instruction was given to render a verdict for the defendant, which was done, and judgment was rendered against the plaintiff for costs. He appeals.
    
      Baylies c& Baylies, for appellant.
    
      Wright, Cummins <& Wright, for appellee.
   Adams, Oh. J".

This case is before us upon a second appeal. See 64 Iowa, 762. Upon the former appeal this court held that the mere fact of the accident did not raise even a presumption of negligence, and that there was nothing in the attending circumstances, so far as they were disclosed by the evidence, tending to show negligence. The case as it is now presented to us is not different from what it was then. The plaintiff, in argument, relies in part upon the difficulty of proving negligence, and claims virtually that, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the burden was upon the defendant to show care. But we are not able to conclude that this position can be sustained. "We think that the court did not err.

Affirmed.  