Track." This was but one of the issues. Another was whether the engine properly coupled with the ten cars so as to move them as a unit and that thereafter the eighth and ninth cars separated because of a defect in the couplers.


14
As previously noted, defendant's Answer admitted that the crewmen intended to take all of the ten cars from the "Whiskey Track" at the time of the first movement there by the switch engine. One or more of the crewmen testified that that was their intention and that they believed that they had joined all of the ten cars with the switch engine until the crewman stationed at the Olive Street Crossing discovered that two of them had been left behind.


15
The jury could have found that theconsidered was whether there was an impact between these cars when the switch engine was first attached to the first eight of the ten. The record is not clear on the question whether the ten were attached when the engine started to move them and became separated in the first movement or failed to couple at all in the first impact in this operation. If there was such impact upon the first movement and eight and nine failed to automatically couple, then there were three impacts as contended by the plaintiff in his brief.


24
There were probative circumstances from which the jury could have inferred that the couplers were properly set on the first or second impact, or both, and did not automatically couple upon either but successfully coupled