
    David Magee, Appellant, v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, Appellee.
    Personal Injury: contributory negligence: evidence.
    
      Appeal from Mahaska District Court. — Hon. David Ryan, Judge.
    Wednesday, October 18, 1893.
    Action for damages for a personal injury sustained by one T. Q-. Klepper, Jr., a bralteman on one of the defendant’s trains. Klepper stepped.off a moving train upon a depot platform, and fell upon the platform, and rolled between the platform and the ears, and his right hand was crushed and injured so that amputation above the wrist became necessary. Klepper assigned his claim for damages to the plaintiff. There was a trial by jury, and, when the plaintiff had introduced his evidence in support of the cause of action, the defendant made a motion that the court should instruct the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. The motion was sustained, and, upon the verdict thus returned, the court rendered a judgment, from which the plaintiff appeals.
    
    Affirmed.
    
      G. W. Lajferty and G. C. Morgan, for appellant.
    
      Subbard Dawley, for appellee.
   Rothrock, J.

The ease has once before been in this court upon an appeal by the defendant, and was reversed upon the ground that there should have been a verdict for the defendant because it did not appear that the defendant was properly chargeable with negligence, and because Klepper was negligent in alighting from the car as he did. The facts as they appeared bn the first trial are quite fully set forth in the former opinion, and need not be repeated here. See 82 Iowa, 249.

It is claimed in behalf of the appellant that the case now presented is-different, both in pleading and fact, from that presented on the former appeal. It is true that certain amendments were made to the petition, and some of the witnesses testified to additional facts, on the last trial, but all these amendments do not change the fact that Klepper negligently stepped from the ear upon the platform, and fell because the car was going in a direction opposite to that in which he supposed it was moving; and a careful examination of all the evidence, as now presented, leads us to the conclusion that the court properly instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. The additional facts testified to by witnesses on the last trial are not so different from what they were on the first trial as to warrant a different conclusion from that reached upon the former appeal.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.  