Corpus Juris: Being a Complete and Systematic Statement of the Whole Body of ...

curs with the weather conditions in causing the accident.98

[§ 1336] E. Duty to Warn Passenger as to Danger.99 The carrier owes to the passenger the duty of protection during transportation in order that, while on the carrier's premises and in its vehicles, he may enjoy comfort, peace, and safety. This duty of care involves warning of danger so far as such warning may enable the passenger to protect himself against an injury which might be anticipated in the exercise of a high degree of care and foresight, and the carrier will be liable for an injury which might have been avoided if due warning had been given. Thus the employees in charge of the train or car should notify passengers of any danger which may be apprehended or foreseen with reference to the place of riding, or of any other peril to which they are subjected;2 and, where a passenger is in a position rendering him liable to be

curves.

injured by a car on an adjacent track, it is the duty
of the conductor or other employee who has knowl-
edge of the passenger's dangerous position, and
that he is oblivious of such danger, to warn him
thereof.3 There is no duty, however, to warn a
passenger of his danger where the conditions which
constitute the danger are as observable by him and
apparently as obvious to him as to the employees
of the carrier; and where a passenger remains on
the running board without any necessity for doing
so, there is no duty to warn him of the danger from
jolts or lurches incident to the ordinary motion of
the car when passing over switches or around
It may also be negligence unduly to alarm
a passenger by unnecessary signals or warnings as
to danger, whereby he is induced to act in such a
way as to be injured; but the usual signals or
warnings required in the operation of the train or
car with reference to those not passengers will not
when he told a passenger to walk
through the car so as to obtain a
seat in another car, it was his duty
to inform the passenger of the dan-
ger of the car making the turn, or to
so control the car that there would
be no danger in the passenger pass-
ing from one car to the other.
cago City R. Co. v. McCaughna. 216
Ill. 202, 74 NE 819 [aff 117 Ill. A.
538]. (2) A railroad company is
negligent as against a stockman
traveling with his stock, who was
accustomed to pass over the tops of
the cars, in failing to give notice of
the train's approach to its snow-
sheds, which were so low that one
could not pass over the top of a
refrigerator car safely.
Nelson v.
Southern Pac. Co., 18 Utah 244, 55 P
364.

Tex. Cruseturner v. International, etc., R. Co., 38 Tex. Civ. A. 466, 86 SW 778.

curred; it knew that on occasions of | LRANS 357, 9 AnnCas 1020.
excessive rainfalls, water would col- N. C.-Ray v. Aberdeen, etc., R.
lect in this narrow creek adjacent Co., 141 N. Č. 84, 53 SE 622.
to its right of way; it knew that in-
jury to its roadbed and tracks would
be probable, if not inevitable, unless
the outlets for this water, whether
natural or artificial, were sufficient
to carry it off. It was incumbent
upon it to exercise that degree of
prudence to foresee, and use such
reasonable means to prevent, injury
to its roadbed and tracks from the
water, as an ordinary prudent person
would exercise and use under sim-
ilar circumstances. This foresight
and means of prevention of injury
are not such as would be suggested
after the happening of the accident,
but only such as would be suggested
to the mind of a very cautious man,
who is without reasonable knowledge
that the accident is likely to occur.'
Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Peck, 152
Ky. 6, 10, 153 SW 39, 49 LRANS 198
and note.

98. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Kuhn, 107 Tenn. 106, 64 SW 202; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Cain, 37 Tex. Civ. A. 531, 84 SW 682; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Bell, 24 Tex. Civ. A. 579, 58 SW 614.

[a] Where a sleeping car was overturned and a passenger injured owing to the defective condition of a culvert and embankment, and the railroad company attempted to show that the defects were caused by an unprecedented rain, it was incumbent on it to show not only that the derailment resulted from an unprecedented rain as a proximate cause, but that it was free from proximate negligence in connection with the condition and capacity of the culvert, track, and roadbed, and in the equipment and operation of the train. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Kuhn, 107 Tenn. 106, 64 SW 202.

99. In alighting from or boarding car see infra § 1349.

In alighting on street see infra § 1338.

1. U. S.-Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Tarin, 108 Fed. 734, 47 CCA 648, 54 LRA 240.

Cal.-Dinnigan v. Peterson, 3 Cal. A. 764, 87 P 218.

Ind.-Terre Haute Electric R. Co. v. Lauer, 21 Ind. A. 466, 52 NE 703.

La. Sullivan V. Vicksburg, etc.,
R. Co., 39 La. Ann. 800, 2 S 586, 4
AmSR 239; Moses v. Louisville, etc.,
R. Co., 39 La. Ann. 649, 2 S 567, 4
AmSR 231; Summers v. Crescent City
R. Co., 34 La. Ann. 139, 44 AmR 419.
Minn. Rosted v. Great Northern
R. Co., 76 Minn. 123, 78 NW 971.
Mo.-Gage v. St. Louis Transit Co.,
211 Mo. 139, 109 SW 13.

N. J.-Whalen V. Consolidated Tract. Co., 61 N. J. L. 606, 40 A 645, 68 AmSR 723, 41 LRA 836; Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Young, 60 N. J. L. 193, 37 A 1013.

N. Y.-Tietz v. International R. Co., 186 N. Y. 347, 78 NE 1083, 10

[a] Dangers arising from unusual conditions. It is the duty of a carrier to warn its passengers of dangers that arise from extraordinary or unusual conditions which have been brought about by the acts of the carrier, especially where such dangers are not known to the passengers, but are known to the carrier or its agents. Sullivan v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 39 La. Ann. 800, 2 S 586, 4 AmSR 239; Moses v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 39 La. Ann. 649, 2 S 567, 4 AmSR 231; Summers v. Crescent City R. Co., 34 La. Ann. 139, 44 AmR 419.

[b] Sufficiency of warning.Where, by reason of running a train too near a washout, the engine and some of the cars were overturned, leaving the car in which plaintiff was a passenger in a situation of danger, and the passengers in the car were told to get out, but plaintiff, who did not understand English, remained in the car, and no further effort was made to remove her, a verdict for plaintiff was properly directed. Southern Pac. R. Co. V. Tarin, 108 Fed. 734, 47 CCA 648, 54 LRA 240.

2. U. S. Behrens v. The Furnessia, 35 Fed. 798.

Ala.-Thompson v. Duncan, 76 Ala.

334.

Conn.-Rosenthal V. New York, etc., R. Co., 88 Conn. 65, 89 A 888, 51 LRANS 775; Hinckley v. Danbury, 81 Conn. 241, 70 A 590.

Ill-Chicago City R. Co. V. Mc-
Caughna. 216 Ill. 202, 74 NE 819 [aff
117 Ill. A. 538]; Lake Shore, etc., R.
Co. v. Brown, 123 Ill. 162, 14 NE 197,
5 AmSR 510; Gorman v. South Side
El. R. Co., 191 Ill. A. 471.

Ky.-Kentucky Cent. R. Co. V.
Thomas, 79 Ky. 160, 21 KyL 114, 42
AmR 208.

Minn. McLean V. Burbank, 11
Minn. 277.

Mont.-Previsich v. Butte Electric
R. Co., 47 Mont. 170, 131 P 25.

N. Y.-Craighead v. Brooklyn City
R. Co., 123 N. Y. 391, 25 NE 387;
Edwards v. New Jersey, etc., R., etc.,
Co., 144 App. Div. 554, 129 NYS 717.
Oh.-Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v.
Salzman, 52 Oh. St. 558, 40 NE 891,
49 AmR 745, 31 LRA 261.

Utah.-Nelson V. Southern Pac.
Co., 18 Utah 244, 55 P 364.

Wash. Washington v. Spokane St.
R. Co., 13 Wash. 9, 42 P 628.

Wis.-Tolleman V. Sheboygan
Light, etc., Co., 148 Wis. 197, 134
NW 406.

[a] Illustrations.—(1) Where the
conductor of a street car knew that
the car would swing around a corner,
and knew that it was near the corner

Chi

3. Gage v. St. Louis Transit Co., 211 Mo. 139, 109 SW 13.

Passengers boarding or alighting from vehicle see infra §§ 1349, 1351.

4. Ind.-Pere Marquette R. Co. v. Strange, 171 Ind. 160, 84 NE 819, 85 NE 1026, 20 LRANS 1041.

Ky.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Rommele, 152 Ky. 719, 143 SW 16; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Proctor, 122 Ky. 92, 89 SW 714, 28 KyL 598.

Mass.-Hilborn v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 191 Mass. 14, 77 NE 646; Falkins v. Boston El. R. Co., 188 Mass. 153, 74 NE 338; Witherington v. Lynn, etc., R. Co., 182 Mass. 596, 66 NE 206. Mo.-Allen v. St. Louis Transit Co., 183 Mo. 411, 81 SW 1142.

N. Y.-Tietz V. International R. Co., 186 N. Y. 347. 78 NE 1083, 10 LRANS 357, 9 AnnCas 1020.

S. C.-Hunter V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 72 S. C. 336, 51 SE 860, 110 AmSR 605.

Wis. Conroy v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 96 Wis. 243, 70 NW 486, 38 LRA

419.

[a] Space between cars. It is not negligence for the employees of a street railroad company in charge of a car to fail to give notice of the existence of a space between the step of a car and the platform, or between the cars of an elevated train. Hilborn v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 191 Mass. 14, 77 NE 646; Falkins v. Boston El. R. Co., 188 Mass. 153, 74 NE 338.

[b] Arm outside window. It is not necessary to warn a passenger of the danger involved in sitting with his arm outside the window. Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. Jacoby, 14 KyL 763; Miller v. St. Louis R. Co., 5 Mo. A. 471.

5. Olund v. Worcester Cons. St. R. Co., 206 Mass. 544, 92 NE 720.

6. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. James, (Kan.) 100 P 641: Ephland v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 137 Mo. 187, 37 SW 820, 38 SW 926, 59 AmSR 498, 35 LRA 107; Kreuzen v. Forty-Second St., etc., R. Co., 13 NYS 588.

[a] It is not negligence for the conductor of a freight train to inform the passengers in the caboose

render the carrier liable for injury resulting to a passenger who is alarmed thereby." The statutory signals required where a train approaches a station have no reference to the safety of the passenger in connection with the operation of the train.

nary care to maintain its premises in such a reasonable and suitable condition that passengers and others authorized to use them may, in the exercise of ordinary care, use them in safety," or such care as would be used by persons of ordinary prudence under like circumstances to see that the construction adopted will render the premises as safe as the exigencies of its business will permit;15 and if it adopts a method of construction of a standard character, such as is generally adopted by other well regulated carriers, 16 and exercises reasonable care to keep the premises in repair," its duty is sufficiently performed. It is not required to. furnish safe or absolutely safe premises,1 or premises as safe as possible.

[§ 1337] F. Care Required and Liability as to Condition and Use of Premises-1. In General.9 While a carrier of passengers is chargeable with the highest degree of care in providing safe cars and appliances for the protection and safety of passengers on its trains,10 the highest or extraordinary care is not required as to passengers on the premises of the carrier, or while they are getting on or off trains; and therefore, as regards the condition of the premises, the care required for the protection of such passengers is reasonable or ordinary care only," although there are some authorities to the contrary.12 As a general rule therefore, with reference to stations, platforms, approaches, and the like, the carrier is bound only to exercise a reasonable degree of care to construct and keep them in a reasonably safe condition, and is liable for any injury to the passenger from a negligent failure to maintain them in such a condition;1 in other words, the carrier is required to use ordiof a fire on the train, or to give the 104 Ind. 239, 3 NE information without any accompanying assurance that there is no immediate danger, or to make the announcement in a loud voice and in a manner deemed to show excitement, so as to entitle a passenger to recover who, becoming alarmed, runs to the rear platform to see where the fire is and is thrown therefrom, on the train being suddenly stopped. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. James, (Kan.) 100 P 641.

7. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Felton, 125 Ill. 458, 17 NE 765 [rev 24 Ill. A. 376]; Kleiber v. People's R. Co., 107 Mo. 240, 17 SW 946, 14 LRA 613. 8. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Hawk, 72 Ala. 112; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. McKenna, 7 Lea (Tenn.) 313.

9. Liability as to persons accompanying passenger see infra § 1347.

10. Glenn V. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co., (Ind. A.) 73 NE 861. See generally supra $8 1295, 1300; infra §§ 1371-1378.

11. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hutchinson, 101 Ark. 424, 142 SW 527; Crowe v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 142 Mich. 692, 106 NW 395; Lafflin v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 106 N. Y. 136, 12 NE 599, 60 AmR 433.

Care varying according to time and place see generally supra § 1300.

12. Schindler v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 178 Ill. A. 239; Merrill v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 158 Ill. A. 38; Johns v. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., 39 S. C. 162. 17 SE 698, 39 AmSR 709, 20 LRA 520 and note; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Butcher, 83 Tex. 309, 18 SW 583; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Wortham, 73 Tex. 25, 10 SW 741, 3 LRA 368; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Harrison, 56 Tex. Civ. A. 17, 120 SW 254.

Care varying according to time and place see generally supra § 1300.

13. Ala. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Arnold, 84 Ala. 159, 4 S 359, 5 AmSR 354.

Ark.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Duncan, 119 Ark. 287, 177 SW 1132; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Woods. 96 Ark. 311, 131 SW 869, 32 LRANS 855 and note; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Caldwell, 93 Ark. 286, 124 SW 1034.

Cal.-Falls v. San Francisco, etc., R. Co., 97 Cal. 114, 31 P 901.

Ga-Southern R. Co. v. Reeves, 116 Ga. 743, 42 SE 1015; Bunkley v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 15 Ga. A. 92, 82 SE 635.

Ill-Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Scates,
90 111. 586; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v.
Stewart, 77 Ill. A. 66; Chicago, etc.,
R. Co. v. Mahara, 47 Ill. A. 208.
Ind.-Pennsylvania Co. v. Marion,

.13

To what premises duty extends. The duty of keeping the premises in a reasonably safe condition. extends to all parts of the premises and approaches thereto to which the public does or will naturally resort, 20 and to all parts of the station grounds reasonably near to the platforms where passengers will naturally or ordinarily go to board cars or after alighting;21 but it does not extend to a portion of the grounds where passengers properly have no occasion to go, ,22 such as a portion of the carrier's

874; Glenn v. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co., (A.) 73 NE 861.

Iowa. Hiatt v. Des Moines, etc., R. Co., 96 Iowa 169, 64 NW 766. Ky.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. Hobbs, 155 Ky. 130, 159 SW 682, 47 LRANS 1149; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Giboney, 124 Ky. 806, 100 SW 216, 30 KyL 1005; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Ricketts, 37 SW 952, 18 KyL 687.

Me.-Rodick v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 109 Me. 530, 85 A 41; Bacon v. Casco Bay Steamboat Co., 90 Me. 46, 37 A 328.

Mass.-Keefe V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 142 Mass. 251, 7 NE 874.

Mich.-Crowe v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 142 Mich. 692, 695, 106 NW 395 [cit Cyc].

Mo.-Robertson v. Wabash R. Co., 152 Mo. 382, 53 SW 1082; Munro v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 155 Mo. A. 710, 135 SW 1016.

N. H.-Hill v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 77 N. H. 151, 89 A 482, AnnCas1914C 714.

N. J.-Feil v. West Jersey, etc., R. Co., 77 N. J. L. 502, 72 A 362.

N. Y.-Kelly v. Manhattan R. Co., 112 N. Y. 443, 20 NE 383, 3 LRA 74; Kirby v. Delaware, etc., Canal Co., 20 App. Div. 473, 46 NYS 777; Foley v. Manhattan El. R. Co., 89 Hun 606, mem, 34 NYS 1050.

N. C.-Stockes v. Suffolk, etc., R. Co., 107 N. C. 178, 11 SE 991.

Tex.-Smith v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 2 Tex. Unrep. Cas. 329; Trinity, etc., R. Co. v. O'Brien, 18 Tex. Civ. A. 690, 46 SW 389.

Wis.-Bates v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 140 Wis. 235, 122 NW 745, 133 AmSR 1069.

14. Lauterer v. Manhattan R. Co., 128 Fed. 540, 63 CCA 38; Woodbury v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 110 Me. 224, 85 A 753, 43 LRANS 682; Rodick v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 109 Me. 530, 85 A 41; Trinity, etc., R. Co. v. O'Brien, 18 Tex. Civ. A. 690, 46 SW 389; Reed v. Axtell, 84 Va. 231, 4 SE 587. See also infra § 1338 et seq.

15. Feil v. West Jersey, etc., R. Co., 77 N. J. L. 502, 72 A 362.

16. Feil v. West Jersey, etc., R. Co., 77 N. J. L. 502, 72 A 362.

[a] Standard appliances.-The duty of a carrier to care for the safety of its passengers, so far as the furnishing of appliances is concerned, is fully performed when the appliances furnished are of a standard character and in proper repair, and it is not obliged to call passengers' attention to the method of construction of platforms, stations, or other appliances, provided the method is that generally adopted by other

well regulated carriers. Feil v. West Jersey, etc., R. Co., 77 N. J. L. 502, 72 A 362.

17. Feil v. West Jersey, etc., R. Co., 77 N. J. L. 502, 72 A 362.

18. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Woods, 15 Tex. Civ. A. 612, 40 SW 846; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Gross, (Tex. Civ. A.) 21 SW 186.

19. Finseth v. Suburban R. Co., 32 Or. 1, 51 P 84, 39 LRA 517.

20. Ala. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Godfrey, 156 Ala. 202, 47 S 185, 130 AmSR 76.

Ark.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Grider, 110 Ark. 437, 161 SW 1032; Arkansas, etc., R. Co. v. Robinson, 96 Ark. 32, 130 SW 536; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Caldwell, 93 Ark. 286, 124 SW 1034.

Fla.-Johnson V. Florida East Coast R. Co., 66 Fla. 415, 63 S 713, 50 LRANS 561, AnnCas1916C 1210.

Ind. Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Treadway, 143 Ind. 689, 40 NE 807, 41 NE 794.

Iowa.-Drummy V. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 153 Iowa 479, 133 NW 655. Wis.-Bates V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 140 Wis. 235, 122 NW 745, 133 AmSR 1069.

See also infra §§ 1338-1346. [a] The duty to provide a safe place for the delivery of baggage to

passengers at their destination cannot be delegated either to an employee, or to an independent corporation having charge of the terminal station. Johnson v. Florida East Coast R. Co., 66 Fla. 415, 63 S 713, 50 LRANS 561 and note, AnnCas1916 C 1210 and note.

21. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Godfrey, 156 Ala. 202, 47 S 185, 130 AmSR 76; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Grider, 110 Ark. 437, 161 SW 1032; Arkansas Midland R. Co. v. Robinson, 96 Ark. 32, 130 SW 536; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Caldwell, 93 Ark. 286, 124 SW 1034; San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Turney, 33 Tex. Civ. A. 626, 78 SW 256.

[a] Where necessary or proper for passenger to go. The rule of high care which a carrier of passengers must use in maintaining its station in a safe condition for passengers applies to any part of its premises where by the acts of the carrier it is made necessary or proper for the passenger to go to board a train. San Antonio, etc.. R. Co. v. Turney, 33 Tex. Civ. A. 626, 78 SW 256.

22. Ala. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Godfrey, 156 Ala. 202, 47 S 185, 130 AmSR 76.

Ky.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. V.

right of way some distance from the station premises, although the carrier has acquiesced in its use,2 or premises which are exclusively used, to the passenger's knowledge, for the handling of freight,2 or to grounds which are not owned or controlled by the carrier, although they are occasionally used by its patrons.2

[§ 1338] 2. Safe Approaches; Egress.26

Ingress and In general the requirement is that the carrier shall use reasonable care in furnishing safe and adequate approaches to the station, platforms,

Turner, 137 Ky. 730, 126 SW 372, | 136 AmSR 317.

Mo.-Archer v. Union Pac. R. Co., 110 Mo. A. 349, 85 SW 934.

Approaches provided by others. This liability of the carrier is applicable with reference to approaches provided by others, but in general made use of by passengers, with the express or implied 152 Ind. 663, 53 NE 641; Louisville, | stairway used by outgoing passenetc., R. Co. v. Treadway, 143 Ind. 689, 40 NE 807, 41 NE 794. Ky-Cumberland R. Co. v. Hemp

S. C.-Holcombe v. Southern R. Co., hill, 169 Ky. 519, 184 SW 883; Louis66 S. C. 6, 44 SE 68.

Tex.-Houston, etc., R. Co. V. Grubbs, 28 Tex. Civ. A. 367, 67 SW 519.

Va.-Mitchell v. Southern R. Co., 118 Va. 642, 88 SE 56.

[a] A carrier maintaining toilets on its trains and at a station performs its duty in that respect at that station, and it need not anticipate that a passenger will jump from a train in the dark and wander about the premises at the station to place not ordinarily used by passengers for the purpose of responding to a call of nature. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Turner, 137 Ky. 730, 126 SW 372, 136 AmSR 317.

[b] Way to signal tower.-Where a railroad company furnished a safe walk to a shed for passengers at a flag station, it is not liable for defects in the way leading to a signal tower not designed for the accommodation of passengers. Mitchell v. Southern R. Co., 118 Va. 642, 88 SE 56.

23. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Godfrey, 156 Ala. 202, 47 S 185, 130 AmSR 76; Fulghum v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 158 N. C. 555, 74 SE 584, 39 LRANS 558.

[a] A culvert on a main line of a railroad two hundred and thirty-five yards from a station is not an approach to the station platform or a portion of the station grounds reasonably near to the platform, where passengers will be likely to go, within the rule requiring a railroad to keep in safe condition all portions of its station platforms and approaches thereto and all portions of its station grounds reasonably near thereto, where passengers will naturally go. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Godfrey, 156 Ala. 202, 47 S 185, 130 AmSR 76.

24. Houston, etc., R. Co. V. Grubbs, 28 Tex. Civ. A. 367, 67 SW 519.

25. Clyde v. Brooklyn Union El. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 705, 133 NYS 1. Compare Cotant v. Boone, Suburban R. Co., 125 Iowa 46, 99 NW 115, 69 LRA 982 (holding that a railroad company is liable for injury to a passenger from a defective stile erected by a third person to provide a passage over fence separating the company's right of way from adjoining property and used by the company's passengers to its knowledge, although the portion of the stile on which the injury occurred was on the adjoining property on which the company had no right to enter).

26. Passengers using dangerous way see infra § 1492.

27. U. S.-The Anglo Norman, 1 F. Cas. No. 393, 4 Sawy. 185. Ala.-Waldrop

Nashville, etc., R. Co., 183 Ala. 226, 62 S 769; Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Godfrey, 156 Ala. 202, 47 S 185, 130 AmSR 76.

ville, etc.. R. Co. v. Hobbs, 155 Ky. 130, 159 SW 682, 47 LRANS 1149; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Meyer, 119 SW 183; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Keller, 104 Ky. 768, 47 SW 1072, 20 KyL 957.

La. -Abney v. Louisiana, etc., R. Co., 127 La. 437, 53 S 678; Peniston v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 34 La. Ann. 777, 44 AmR 444.

Mass.-Legge v. New York, etc., R. Co., 197 Mass. 88, 83 NE 367, 23 LRANS 633 and note; Young v. New York, etc., R. Co., 171 Mass. 33, 50 NE 455, 41 LRA 193; Bethmann v. Old Colony R. Co., 155 Mass. 352, 29 NE 587; Gaynor v. Old Colony, etc., R. Co., 100 Mass. 208, 97 AmD 96.

Mich. Poole v. Consolidated St. R. Co., 100 Mich. 379, 59 NW 390, 25 LRA 744; Burnham v. Wabash Western R. Co., 91 Mich. 523, 52 NW 14.

Mo.-Rearden v. St. Louis. etc., R. Co., 114 SW 961; Eichorn v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 130 Mo. 575, 32 SW 993.

N. J.-Fielders v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 67 N. J. L. 76, 50 A 533 [rev on other grounds 68 N. J. L. 343, 53 A 404, 50 A 822, 96 AmSR 552, 59 LRA 455].

N. Y.-Ayres v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 158 N. Y. 254, 53 NE 22; Boyce v. Manhattan R. Co., 118 N. Y. 314, 23 NE 304; Hoffman v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 75 N. Y. 605; Lycett v. Manhattan R. Co., 12 App. Div. 326, 42 NYS 431; Schlessinger v. Manhattan R. Co., 49 Misc. 504, 98 NYS 840; Pitcher v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 16 NYS 62 [aff 137 N. Y. 568 mem, 33 NE 339 mem].

N. D.-Messenger v. Valley City St., etc.. R. Co., 21 N. D. 82, 88, 128 NW 1023, 32 LRANS 881 and note [cit Cyc].

Okl.- -Mayne v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 12 Okl. 10, 69 P 933.

Pa.-Mack v. Pittsburgh R. Co., 247 Pa. 598, 93 A 618; Thorne v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 244 Pa. 470, 90 A 914; Gilmore v. Philadelphia, etc.. R. Co., 154 Pa. 375, 25 A 774; Neslie v. Second, etc., Sts.

Pass. R. Co., 113 Pa. 300, 6 A 72. Tex.-Farmer v. International, etc., R. Co., (Civ. A.) 134 SW 356; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Roundtree, (Civ. A.) 25 SW 989. But see Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Harrison, 56 Tex. Civ. A. 17, 120 SW 254 (highest degree of care required as to approaches to cars).

Vt.-Wiley v. Rutland R. Co., 86 Vt. 504, 86 A 808.

Va.-Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. Mathews, 114 Va. 173. 76 SE 288; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 103 Va. 326, 49 SE 487.

Eng. Atherton v. London, etc., R. Co., 93 L. T. Rep. N. S. 464.

gers in making an exit to the street in a reasonably safe condition for travel, and if it allows the steps to become covered with a thin coating of mud whereby they become slippery and unsafe, it fails to perform its duty. MacLaren v. Boston El. R. Co., 197 Mass. 490, 83 NE 1088.

[c] Permitting train to blockade way to station.-(1) It is a railroad company's duty not to permit its trains to stand across the highway in front of its station for an reasonable time, thereby preventing a passenger from going into the station, and compelling her to remain in the cold. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Daugherty, 108 SW 336, 32 KyL 1392, 15 LRANS 740 and note. (2) It is negligence for a railroad company to allow a freight train to block the passageway to the station, when a passenger train is due at the station, so that persons desiring to take passage cannot reach the station in time to purchase tickets. Mayne v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 12 Okl. 10, 69 P

933. (3) A passenger leaving a train at a station may recover damages for injuries from exposure to a rainstorm by reason of the fact that the way to the waiting room was obstructed by a freight train. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Keller, 104 Ky. 768, 47 SW 1072, 20 KyL 957.

[d] Danger from sparks from engine.-A railroad company has been held liable for injuries sustained by a passenger using an authorized means of exit from a station, by a spark from an engine on the railroad, where it was shown that the company's attention had been called to the danger and it had declined to protect the path, although that could have been done at reasonable cost. Atherton v. London, etc., R. Co., 93 L. T. Rep. N. S. 464.

28. Dieckmann V. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 145 Iowa 250, 121 NW 676, 139 AmSR 420, 31 LRANS 338; Dieckmann v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., (Iowa) 105 NW 526; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Harrison, 56 Tex. Civ. A. 17, 120 SW 254.

place see generally supra §§ 1300, Care varying according to time and

1337.

29. Atlanta Terminal Co. v. Johnson, 15 Ga. A. 22, 82 SE 629; Cassady v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 131 La. 626, 60 S 15; Cazneau v. Fitchburg R. Co., 161 Mass. 355, 37 NE 311; Carter v. Rockford, etc., R. Co., 147 Wis. 86, 132 NW 598.

[a] In the absence of knowledge that only one safe path has been provided by a railroad corporation for leaving a passenger station, and of any notice or direction to take a particular path, a passenger may use deany path which appears to be signed and used as a way to the street, and as to him the corporation is bound to see that all such paths reasonably safe. Cazneau v. Fitchburg R. Co., 161 Mass. 355, 37 NE 311.

Ont.-Oldright v. Grand Trunk R.
Co., 22 Ont. A. 286.
[a]
are
Invitation to leave by parti-
cular way. Where carrier
a
im-
pliedly invites its passengers to leave
its station by a certain way, it is
bound to do what is reasonably
necessary
V.
to insure the safety of
passengers leaving by that way.
Wiley v. Rutland R. Co., 86 Vt. 504,
86 A 808.

Ark.-St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. Caldwell, 93 Ark. 286, 124 SW 1034. Ill. Chicago Terminal Transfer R. Co. v. Schmelling, 197 Ill. 619, 64 NE 714 [aff 99 Ill. A. 577].

Ind.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cheek,

[b] Stairway. It is the duty of a carrier of passengers to maintain a

choose

[b] Where there are two ways of reaching a toilet at a station, a passenger may either way, and the railroad company must keep them both safe, or warn the public not to use the unsafe way. Cassady v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 131 La. 626, 60 S 15.

approval of the carrier,30 although the carrier has never repaired or assumed any control over such approaches, and even though it has no right to repair the same without permission,32 since it owes to its passengers the nondelegable duty of seeing that such approaches are reasonably safe.33

Carriers by street car, taking up and discharging passengers on a public street, are generally not responsible for defects or obstructions in the street,3 except in so far as they are required to keep the street between, or adjacent to, their rails in repair.35 But the passenger should be warned of any special danger involved in his alighting at such place,36 or should at least be guarded against injury from such dangers, as by erecting barricades or otherwise,37

30. Ala.-East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Watson, 94 Ala. 634, 10 S 228; Watson v. Oxanna Land Co., 92 Ala. 320, 8 S 770.

Ga.-Georgia Northern R. Co. v. Hardwick, 12 Ga. A. 268, 77 SE 102. Iowa.-Cotant v. Boone Suburban R. Co., 125 Iowa 46, 99 NW 115, 69 LRA 982.

Me.-Carleton v. Rockland, etc., St. R. Co., 110 Me. 397, 86 A 334, AnnCas 1915A 1209.

Mich.-Collins v. Toledo, etc., R. Co.. 80 Mich. 390, 45 NW 178; Cross v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 69 Mich. 363, 37 NW 361, 13 AmSR 399.

Mo.-Chance v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 10 Mo. A. 351.

N. H-Haselton V. Portsmouth, etc.. St. R. Co., 71 N. H. 589, 53 A 1016.

N. J.-Delaware, etc., R. Co. V. Trautwein, 52 N. J. L. 169, 19 A 178, 19 AmSR 442, 7 LRA 435.

N. Y.-Wolf v. Brooklyn Ferry Co., 54 App. Div. 67, 66 NYS 298.

Tex-Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Glenk, 9 Tex. Civ. A. 599, 30 SW 278.

Va.-Washington, etc., R. Co. V. Vaughan, 111 Va. 785, 69 SE 1035. Wash.-Harris v. Seattle, etc., R. Co.. 65 Wash. 27, 117 P 601.

Wis.-Carter v. Rockford, etc., R. Co., 147 Wis. 86, 132 NW 598.

[a] Platform adopted by carrier. -Where a platform is built by the side of a street railroad and used by it, and the company regularly stops its cars there, to take on and discharge passengers, this fact justifies a finding that the company has adopted the platform and invites the public to use it in getting on and off the cars. Haselton v. Portsmouth, etc., St. R. Co., 71 N. H. 589, 53 A 1016.

[b] Approaches owned by city.The duty of a railroad company to exercise reasonable care in affording safe approaches to the stations and platforms applies to approaches constructed and owned by the city, if constantly and notoriously used by passengers as a means of approach. Schlessinger V. Manhattan R. Co., 49 Misc. 504, 98 NYS 840.

[c] Public highway.-The fact that the way across railroad tracks used by an alighting passenger in going to the station is a public highway does not affect the degree of care due him by the carrier. Washington, etc., R. Co. v. Vaughan, 111 Va. 785, 69 SE 1035.

31. Carter v. Rockford, etc.. R. Co., 147 Wis. 86, 132 NW 598. Compare Clyde v. Brooklyn Union El. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 705, 133 NYS 1 (grounds not owned by carrier, although occasionally used by its patrons).

32. Schlessinger v. Manhattan R. Co., 49 Misc. 504, 98 NYS 840.

33. Carter v. Rockford, etc., R. Co., 147 Wis. 86, 132 NW 598.

34. Ga.-Turner v. City Electric R. Co., 134 Ga. 869, 68 SE 735.

Me.-Carleton v. Rockland, etc., St. R. Co.. 110 Me. 397. 86 A 334, Ann Cas1915A 1209; Conway v. Lewiston, etc., Horse R. Co., 87 Me. 283, 32 A 901. 90 Me. 199, 38 A 110.

Mass.-Thompson v. Gardner, etc., R. Co., 193 Mass. 133, 78 NE 854, 118 [10 C.J.-58]

particularly where the source of danger has been caused by the carrier itself.38

[§ 1339] 3. Safety of Ingress and Egress at Unusual Place. If by custom the carrier recognizes a proper place for getting on board or alighting, which is not the usual place specially provided for that purpose, the duty to provide reasonably safe approaches exists, although it may not be necessary to provide the same means for approach that would be required at the usual place;39 and whether the place for getting on board or alighting is a proper place, in such sense that the passenger is entitled to protection against injury, will depend on express or implied invitation, it being the duty of the carrier to look after the safety of the place

AmSR 459 and note; Lee v. Boston El. R. Co., 182 Mass. 454, 65 NE 822; Bigelow v. West End St. R. Co., 161 Mass. 393, 37 NE 367.

Mich. Sweet v. Detroit United R. Co.. 141 Mich. 650, 105 NW 132. Minn.-Stewart v. St. Paul City R. Co.. 78 Minn. 85, 80 NW 854.

N. J.-Fielders V. North Jersey St. R. Co., 68 N. J. L. 343, 53 A 404, 54 A 822, 96 AmSR 552, 59 LRA 455 [rev 67 N. J. L. 76, 50 A 533].

Pa.-Sligo v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 224 Pa. 135, 73 A 211.

[a] A public street is not to be regarded as a passenger station for the safety of which a street railroad company is responsible, when used by passengers as a place to alight. Thompson v. Gardner, etc., R. Co., 193 Mass. 133, 78 NE 854, 118 AmSR 459; Spangler V. Saginaw Valley Tract. Co., 152 Mich. 405, 116 NW 373.

[b] Duty to furnish safe egress not applicable.-The rule that a street railroad company, stopping cars for discharging passengers at a place where a platform or station is maintained or adopted, is bound to furnish

reasonably safe way by which they may leave the place, is not applicable where passengers are set down in the street. Carleton V. Rockland, etc., R. Co., 110 Me. 397, 86 A 334, AnnCas1915A 1209.

[c] The failure of a street railway to repair a pavement in accordance with the requirements of a city ordinance has been held not to give a right of action to one who has alighted from one of the carrier's cars and is injured in sequence of a defect in the pavement. Fielders v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 68 N. J. L. 343, 53 A 404, 54 A 822, 96 AmSR 552, 59 LRA 455 [rev 67 N. J. L. 76, 50 A 533].

con

[d] Where consent is obtained to lay street railroad tracks on a public road, it becomes the duty of the company to conform its line to the established grade of the highway and to adjust its operation to the conditions existing on the ground; and it has neither the right nor the duty to exercise any control over the highway, nor does the burden rest on it to furnish approaches or places for passengers to alight. Sligo v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 224 Pa. 135, 73 A 211.

[e] Reserved space. Where a street railroad was empowered to lay its tracks in a reserved space in a street from which horses and ordinary teams and vehicles were excluded, but which was open to the use of pedestrians, the fact that that part of the street was not open to vehicle traffic did not impose on the railroad company duties other than those which a street railroad is under because of its location in any street, with reference to persons who had been, or might be, passengers. Conroy v. Boston El. R. Co., 188 Mass. 411, 74 NE 672.

35. Mahnke v. New Orleans. etc., R. Co., 104 La. 411, 29 S 52; White v. Lewiston, etc., St. R. Co., 107 Me. 412, 78 A 473; Welch v. Syracuse Rapid Transit R. Co., 70 App. Div. 362, 75 NYS 173. See generally

Street Railroads [36 Cyc 1497].

[a] Illustration.-A street railroad company which, as partial consideration for the acquisition of the franchise of running cars through the streets of a city, has bound itself by contract to pave and keep in repair the street between its rails, is liable to a person for injuries sustained by accidentally stepping into a hole in the street between the tracks after leaving the car, where the hole had been in existence and visible for a week, and the crossing was liable to have holes in it from extraneous causes. Mahnke v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 104 La. 411, 29 S 52.

[b] Release from obligation.-A resolution of the city council empowering a paving company to take up the pavement laid by a street railroad company and to repave the street and keep it in repair in accordance with the city's specifications, is admissible in evidence, in an action against a railroad company for injury sustained by a passenger in stepping into a hole in the pavement on alighting from its cars, as showing that the company was relieved from its obligation to keep in repair such portion of the street. Welch v. Syracuse Rapid Transit R. Co., 70 App. Div. 362, 75 NYS 173. 36. See infra § 1349.

37. Colo. Colorado Springs, etc., R. Co. v. Petit, 37 Colo. 326, 86 P 121.

Ind.-Ft. Wayne Tract. Co. v. Morvilius, 31 Ind. A. 464, 68 NE 304. Mo.-Macdonald v. St. Louis Transit Co., 108 Mo. A. 374, 83 SW 1001. N. Y.-Schlessinger v. Manhattan R. Co., 49 Misc. 504, 98 NYS 840. Or.-Skottowe v. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 22 Or. 430, 30 P 222, 16 LRA 593.

[a] Steamboat landing.-The fact that an approach to a steamboat landing is maintained in a public street will not relieve the carrier from liability for defects in such approach. Skottowe v. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 22 Or. 430, 30 P 222, 16 LRA 593.

38. Montgomery St. R. Co. V. Mason, 133 Ala. 508, 32 S 261; Wolf v. Third Ave. R. Co., 67 App. Div. 605, 74 NYS 336; Wells v. Steinway R. Co., 18 App. Div. 180, 45 NYS 864.

39. III.-Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Doan, 93 Ill. A. 247 [aff 195 Ill. 168, 62 NE 826].

Mich.- -Lemon V. Grand Rapids, etc.. R. Co, 136 Mich. 647, 100 NW 22. Mo.-Waller v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 59 Mo. A. 410.

Tex.-Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Criswell, 101 Tex. 399, 108 SW 806 [aff (Civ. A.) 103 SW 695]; Stewart v. International, etc., R. Co.. 53 Tex. 289,37 AmR 753; San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Turney, 33 Tex. Civ. A. 626, 78 SW 256; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Williams, 21 Tex. Civ. A. 469, 51 SW 653.

Wis. Hartwig v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 49 Wis. 358, 5 NW 865.

Eng. Robson v. North Eastern R. Co., 2 Q. B. D. 85; Rose v. North Eastern R. Co., 2 Ex. D. 248; Siner V. Great Western R. Co., L. R. 4

at which passengers are invited to get on or off the train, and this rule applies also to street cars. But, if a passenger enters or leaves a train or car at a place not intended for getting on board or alighting, without any invitation or direction so to do, he cannot recover for injuries resulting from the unsafe character of the place.12 It has been held that, if for some proper reason the passenger is required or allowed to leave or to take the train at a place not the customary stopping place, what is required of the carrier is care with

[§ 1340] 4. Safety of Place for Getting on Board or Alighting. In general, with reference to the place afforded to the passenger for getting on board or alighting, it is the duty of the carrier to use reasonable care to see that it is a safe place, whether it is the usual place or not, if it is one at which the passenger is expressly or impliedly invited to get on or off the train or car, 44 and in furtherance of this duty the carrier should stop its train or car

Exch. 117; Foy v. London, etc., R. | stopped, the carrier is negligent. Mc-|
Co., 18 C. B. N. S. 225, 114 ECL 225,
144 Reprint 429.

Ont-Oldright v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 22 Ont. A. 286.

[a] Abandoned station-A railroad company cannot defeat a recovery for injuries sustained at a station by the claim that such station was abandoned, where, although it kept no agent and sold no tickets there, it sold tickets to, and permitted passengers to get off and on at such place. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Williams, 21 Tex. Civ. A. 469, 51 SW 653.

40. U. S.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Foley, 53 Fed. 459, 3 CCA 589.

Ill Davidson v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 164 Ill. A. 47.

Iowa. Allender v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 43 Iowa 276.

Mich.-Cross v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 69 Mich. 363, 37 NW 361, 13 AmSR 399.

Miss. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co. Howe, 52 Miss. 202.

Mo.-Nurse v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 61 Mo. A. 67.

N. Y.-Hulbert v. New York Cent. R. Co., 40 N. Y. 145.

Tex. International, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 14 SW 642.

Eng.-Bridges v. North London R. Co., L. R. 7 H. L. 213; Lewis V. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 9 Q. B. 66; Weller v. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 9 C. P. 126; Cockle v. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 7 C. P. 321.

Ont.-Anderson v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 17 CanLTOccNotes 392.

[a] Mere stopping is not an invitation to alight.

Govern V. Interurban R. Co., 136 Iowa 13, 111 NW 412, 125 AmSR 215, 13 LRANS 476 and note.

42. Ga. Central R. Co. v. Thompson, 76 Ga. 770.

Ind.-Cleveland, etc., R. Co. V. Wade, 18 Ind. A. 346, 48 NE 12. Iowa.-McDonald v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 26 Iowa 124, 95 AmD 114. Kan.-Chicago, etc.. R. Co. Frazer, 55 Kan. 582, 40 P 923. Mass.-Buckley v. Old Colony R. Co., 161 Mass. 26, 36 NE 583. Mo.-Gunderman v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 58 Mo. A. 370.

N. H.-Murch v. Concord R. Corp., 29 N. H. 9. 61 AmD 631.

Pa.-Bland V. Roxborough, etc., R. Co., 13 Pa. Super. 93. Tex.-International, etc., R. Co. v. Folliard, 66 Tex. 603, 1 SW 624, 59 AmR 632.

Books

Corpus Juris: Being a Complete and Systematic Statement of the ..., Volume 10