## Facts

- Joseph Beems worked for the railroad as a brakeman and previously had experience as a switchman in the railroad’s yards.
- During switching operations, Beems attempted to uncouple a car from the engine’s tender while the equipment was moving.
- The engine and cars moved at an excessive speed for the maneuver; Beems signaled for the speed to be checked and proceeded on the expectation the signal would be obeyed.
- The crew did not reduce speed or otherwise check the movement before Beems was injured.
- Beems became caught beneath the tender (described in summaries as his foot being caught) and was run over, suffering fatal injuries.
- The administrator of Beems’s estate sued the railroad for negligence; a jury found for the estate and awarded damages, and the railroad appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Beems was contributorily negligent as a matter of law by going between moving equipment to uncouple after signaling to slow.
2. Whether the railroad could avoid liability because Beems’s foot became caught when the equipment passed over him.
3. Whether Beems could assume the engine crew would use ordinary care and respond to his signal, rather than anticipating their negligence.

## Decision

- The court affirmed judgment for the estate.
- Contributory negligence was not established as a matter of law; it was properly left to the jury on the full circumstances of the switching operation.
- The railroad remained liable if its negligent operation caused the fatal injury, even if Beems’s foot became caught.
- Beems was entitled to proceed on the assumption that co-employees would act with ordinary care, including obeying a signal to reduce speed.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff’s impaired ability to avoid harm at the moment of injury (such as being caught or trapped) does not bar recovery if the defendant’s negligent operation is a legal cause of the injury.
- In employment tasks that require hazardous maneuvers, a worker’s performance of assigned duties is not per se contributory negligence.
- An actor may assume others will exercise ordinary care and is not required to anticipate negligent conduct in advance.
- When reasonable minds may differ on the plaintiff’s care under the circumstances, contributory negligence is a question for the jury.

## Conclusion

The court held that a railroad may be liable for fatal injuries caused by negligent train operation during switching, and that the decedent’s decision to perform required uncoupling work—while relying on a reasonable expectation the crew would slow in response to his signal—did not bar recovery as a matter of law, even though he became caught when struck.


Beems v. Chi., Rock Island & Peoria R.R., 12 N.W. 222 (Iowa 1882)