45 at the station platform, or at a reasonably safe and convenient place." 46 Thus, while a street railroad company may not be obliged to furnish a passenger a safe place to alight from its car, where it is stopped at other than a regular stopping place at his instance, yet as to passengers generally, it is required to exercise reasonable care in selecting a place at which to stop its cars to allow them to 47 board or alight with safety;48 and this duty is met. when it stops its car so that the passenger in alighting will step on a part of the street properly marked for public travel.49 If the company has provided any portion of its roadbed as a place for passengers to alight, it must exercise reasonable care to keep that particular place safe for the purpose. Furthermore it is the duty of the persons 50 vannah Electric Co., 16 Ga. A. 453, 85 SE 621; Flack v. Nassau Electric R. Co., 41 App. Div. 399, 58 NYS 839; Bland v. Roxborough, etc., R. Co., 13 Pa. Super. 93; Henry v. Grant St. Electric R. Co., 24 Wash. 246, 64 P 137. Ark, 598, 168 SW 573; Le Duc v. St. | 134 Ga. 869, 68 SE 735; Bird v. Sa- [d] Where a passenger takes the wrong train by mistake, and not by any negligence of the carrier, the latter is liable for injuries from requiring him to disembark at an unsafe place. Johnson v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 13 Ga. A. 298, 79 SE 91. See also supra § 1192. [e] A carrier is not relieved of the duty to furnish a safe place to alight, by knowledge on the part of the passenger that the carrier had not previously been discharging that duty. McGovern v. Interurban R. Co., 136 Iowa 13, 111 NW 412, 125 AmSR 215, 13 LRANS 476. [f] Invitation to alight.-(1) Arrival of a train at the terminus of the line, and at the usual place for passengers to alight, shows an invitation to alight. Kearney v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 158 N. C. 521, 74 SE 593. (2) Unless an electric railroad company has by its practice waived its established rule that passengers shall alight only at the designated stopping places, the slowing up of a car before crossing another track at a place not designated as a stopping place is not an invitation to passengers to alight, and evidence that passengers have been in the habit of taking advantage of such slowing up or stopping to alight there does not establish such waiver. Stevens V. Boston El. R. Co., 199 Mass. 471, 85 NE 571. V. 45. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. Wade, 18 Ind. A. 346, 48 NE 12; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Lee, 37 Okl. 545, 132 P 1072, 46 LRANS 357; Schaffer v. Rex, 14 Can. Exch. 403. [a] An invitation is extended to persons to enter and become passengers on a railroad train only when it has been brought to a full stop at a station platform or other place which has been provided and used for the discharge and reception of passengers. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Wade, 18 Ind. A. 346, 48 NE 12. Duty to stop at place for alighting generally see supra §§ 1233, 1269. 46. McGovern V. Interurban R. Co., 136 Iowa 13, 111 NW 412, 125 AmSR 215, 13 LRANS 476; Le Duc v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 159 Mo. A. 136, 140 SW 758. [a] Interurban road.-Although an interurban railroad operating cars which for the accommodation of passengers stopped at highway crossings was not required to provide a passenger platform at such crossings, it was required to exercise reasonable care to enable passengers to alight with as little danger as practicable, and, where a car was stopped at a highway crossing, and a passenger invited to alight at a place more hazardous than that at which the car might conveniently have been stopped, the railroad was negligent. McGovern v. Interurban R. Co., 136 Iowa 13, 111 NW 412, 125 AmSR 215, 13 LRANS 476 and note. 47. Turner v. City Electric R. Co., [a] Where a street car is not stopped at the place indicated by the passenger, but is stopped at a distance beyond, at a place where it is unsafe for the passenger to alight, the carrier is negligent. Henry v. Grant St. Electric R. Co., 24 Wash. 246, 64 P 137. Care required where a passenger is taken up or let off at a place other than the regular stopping place see infra §§ 1360, 1361. 48. Ala.-Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Walsh, 146 Ala. 295, 40 S 560. Ga. Turner V. City Electric R. Co., 134 Ga. 869, 68 SE 735; Bird v. Savannah Electric Co., 16 Ga. A. 453, 85 SE 621. Ill.-Burge v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 193 Ill. A. 492; Slocum v. Peoria R. Co., 179 Ill. A. 317. Kan.-Haas v. Wichita R., etc., Co., 89 Kan. 613, 132 P 195, 48 LRANS 974. La.-Carroll V. New Orleans R., etc., Co., 132 La. 683, 61 S 752; Leveret v. Shreveport Belt R. Co., 110 La. 399, 34 S 579. Me.-White v. Lewiston, etc., St. R. Co., 107 Me. 412, 78 A 473. Md. Hayes v. United R., etc., Co., 124 Md. 687, 93 A 226. Mass.-Farrington v. Boston El. R. Co., 202 Mass. 315, 88 NE 578. Mich. Fuller v. Detroit United R. Co., 176 Mich. 135, 142 NW 572; Spangler v. Saginaw Valley Tract. Co., 152 Mich. 405, 116 NW 373. Minn. Stewart v. St. Paul City R. Co., 78 Minn. 85, 80 NW 854. Mo.-Senf v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 112 Mo. A. 74, 86 SW 887. N. H.-Bass v. Concord St. R. Co., 70 N. H. 170, 46 A 1056. N. Y.-Grissinger v. International R. Co., 143 App. Div. 631, 128 NYS 63; MacKenzie v. Union R. Co., 82 App. Div. 124, 81 NYS 748 [aff 178 N. Y. 638 mem, 71 NE 1134_mem]. Or. Simmons v. Oregon R. Co., 41 Or. 151, 69 P 440, 1022. R. I.-Morrison V. Rhode Island Co., 87 A 199, 45 LRANS 988. Can.-Blakely v. Montreal Tramways Co., 20 DomLR 643. Que.-Montreal St. R. Co. v. Chevandier, 24 Que. K. B. 48, 24 DomLR 349. [a] Where a street is temporarily defective, (1) and a passenger alighting is apt to step on the defect, a street railroad company may be held to reasonable care, either by way of warning or otherwise; but, where there is nothing in the appearance of the passenger to indicate to a conductor that she has not ordinary capacity to care for herself, or that it would be more dangerous for her to alight than for other persons, the company has a right to assume that she knows generally of the construction of sidewalks. Farrington Boston El. R. Co., 202 Mass. 315, 88 NE 578. (2) If the act of a third party, in reconstructing a street paving, has rendered dangerous an alighting place chosen by the street railroad, the latter must, even at the risk of inconvenience to the passenger, choose another point of alighting for the time being at least, or it should take reasonable and prudent steps to cause the threatened danger for the time being to disappear, or should warn of the danger a V. passenger who is about to alight. Blakely v. Montreal Tramways Co., 20 DomLR 643. [b] Rolling stone in street.-A street railroad company which has no regular stations, but stops its cars at or near street crossings, having no control over the location of its tracks, nor over the street between its tracks and the curb, is not liable for an injury to a passenger received by stepping on a rolling stone in the street between the track and the curb when alighting from a car, where it does not appear that the place was so unusually dangerous or unsuitable as to render the stopping of the car there negligent. Conway v. Lewiston, etc., R. Co., 90 Me. 199, 38 A 110. [c] Street under repair.-Where a passenger is induced to alight in darkness at a place where the street is being repaired, and steps from the car on a loose brick before she is clear of the car and while still a passenger, the company is liable. Slocum v. Peoria R. Co., 179 Ill. A. 317. [d] Stopping street car at unusual place.-Stopping a street car at a place which is not as safe as the one where the car is usually stopped may be negligence. Bass v. Concord St. R. Co., 70 N. H. 170, 46 A 1056. [e] A depression (1) in a pavement a step away from where the passengers alight is situated near enough to the track to make it an alighting place and render the company liable if it is unsafe. Fuller v. Detroit United R. Co., 176 Mich. 135, 142 NW 572. (2) Where near a cross street there existed a hole adjoining the track of a street railroad running in the suburban part of a town, and a car stopped with the rear exit back from the cross street and directly opposite such hole, and a passenger alighted at night and walked into it, thinking she was on the cross street, the existence of the hole would not make the place of alighting a dangerous one, or require the conductor to warn the passenger of its existence. Hayes v. United R., etc., Co., 124 Md. 687, 93 A 226. (3) A depression four or five inches deep, and but a few inches in extent, does not render a point in the street six or eight feet distant therefrom an unsafe place for street car passengers to alight, especially where there is no occasion for them to pass over such depression to reach the nearest crossing. Carroll v. New Orleans R., etc., Co., 132 La. 683, 61 S 752. (4) A depression twelve inches square and of a maximum depth of three inches, located a step away from where a passenger would alight from a street car, is not an unsafe place for the landing of passengers. Fuller v. Detroit United R. Co., supra. [f] Where a street car company operates an open car with transverse seats, the implied invitation on the stopping of the car, or the implied representation as to the safety of the points on the street opposite the seats, is not restricted to one side or the other in the absence of warning by the company. White v. Lewiston, etc., St. R. Co., 107 Me. 412, 78 A 473. 49. Burge v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 193 Ill. A. 492; Farrington v. Boston El. R. Co., 202 Mass. 315, 88 NE 578; Creenan v. International R. Co., 139 App. Div. 863, 124 NYS 360. 50. Tipton v. Topeka R. Co., 89 Kan. 451, 132 P 189; Topp v. United R., etc., Co., 99 Md. 630, 59 A 52, 1 AnnCas 912; Flack v. Nassau Electric [§ 1341] 5. Safety of Stations, Platforms, Walks, and Landing Places-a. In General. The care required of the carrier for the protection of a passenger on its premises involves reasonable care to provide and maintain safe and adequate stations, platforms, walks, steps, and landings for use in waiting for, approaching, and leaving trains or other means of conveyance in which the transportation is to be, or has been, furnished;54 and it is liable for injuries caused by defects which 32 SW 993; Fullerton v. Fordyce, 121 Mo. 1, 25 SW 587, 42 AmSR 516; Chase v. Atchison. etc., R. Co., 134 Mo. A. 655, 114 SW 1141; Waller v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 59 Mo. A. 410. R. Co., 41 App. Div. 399, 58 NYS 839. | ligation to make reasonable provision 51. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Walsh, 146 Ala. 295, 40 S 560; Tilden V. Rhode Island Co., 27 R. I. 482, 63 A 675. a [a] Knowledge of depression. Where a depression into which a passenger stepped on alighting from a car had been there for a long time, and at the time of the accident grading was being done to level up the ground adjacent to the rails near by, and the carrier had established white pole as a stopping place near the point of the accident, and the depression was hid from view as the passenger sat in the car, it was sufficient to import notice to defendant of the unsafe condition of the ground and to make out a prima facie case of its negligence. Tilden v. Rhode Island Co., 27 R. I. 482, 63 A 675. 52. See infra § 1498. 53. Ind.-Louisville, etc.. Tract. Co. v. Walker, 177 Ind. 38, 97 NE 151. Mass.- Wakeley v. Boston El. R. Co., 217 Mass. 488, 105 NE 436; Rose v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 194 Mass. 415, 80 NE 580. Mich.-Wilson v. Detroit United R. Co., 167 Mich. 107, 132 NW 762. N. Y.-Creenan v. International R. Co., 139 App. Div. 863, 124 NYS 360. W. Va.-Killmyer V. Wheeling Tract. Co., 72 W. Va. 148, 77 SE 908, 48 LRANS 683 and note, AnnCas 1915C 1220. B. C.-Schnell v. British Columbia Electric R. Co., 15 B. C. 378. [a] Degree of care.-(1) Where a track is obstructed, and a transfer to another car is necessary, a passenger is entitled to the highest degree of care which the carrier can give him. Killmyer v. Wheeling Tract. Co., 72 W. Va. 148, 77 SE 908, 48 LRANS 683, AnnCas1915C 1220. (2) The rule which requires only ordinary care of railroad carriers in maintaining safe places for the ingress and egress of passengers to and from their trains at regular stopping places does not apply to the obligation imposed on a street railroad company requiring a passenger to alight from a car to board another to complete his journey, because of excavations of the track and street, the obstructions of the street, the stopping of the car in the middle of a square, the condition of the place of alighting, and the requirement of the passenger to alight being brought about by the company. Louisville, etc., Tract. Co. v. Walker, 177 Ind. 38, 97 NE 151. [b] Defects in street. While one transferring from one street car to another does not lose his status as a passenger, nevertheless the street railroad having furnished a safe place in the street for the passenger to alight and to reëmbark is not liable for defects or dangers in the street. Wilson v. Detroit United R. Co., 167 Mich. 107, 132 NW 762. [c] Path around obstruction.Where a street car company voluntarily provides and points out to passengers a path around an obstruction to their line to a point where the route is continued, it assumes an ob for their safety, regardless of whether the relation of carrier and passenger exists while they are passing around the obstruction; and the fact that the carrier has not obtained permission from the owner of the land over which the path lays to use the land, so that both the carrier and those using the path are trespassers against the owner, does not relieve the carrier from exercising due care for the safety of those whom it invites to use the path. Powers v. Old Colony St. R. Co., 201 Mass. 66, 87 NE 192. 54. U. S.-Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Hall, 100 Fed. 760, 41 CCA 50; Green v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 36 Fed. 66 [aff 140 U. S. 49, 11 SCt 650, 35 L. ed. 339]; Harkey v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 11 F. Cas. No. 6,065; Seymour v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 21 F. Cas. No. 12,685, 3 Biss. 43. Ala.-Waldrop v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., 183 Ala. 226, 62 S 769. Ark. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Duncan, 119 Ark. 287, 177 SW 1132; Arkansas, etc., R. Co. v. Robinson, 96 Ark. 32, 130 SW 536. Cal-Jamison v. San Jose, etc., R. Co., 55 Cal. 593. Colo.-Union Depot, etc., Co. V. Londoner, 50 Colo. 22, 114 P 316, 33 LRANS 433. Ga.-Central R., etc., Co. v. Smith, 80 Ga. 526, 5 SE 772. Ill. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Walker, 217 Ill. 605, 75 NE 520 [aff 118 III. A. 3971; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 63 Ill. 167. Ind.-Pennsylvania Co. v. Marion, 123 Ind. 415, 23 NE 973, 18 AmSR 330, 7 LRA 687; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Lucas, 119 Ind. 583, 21 NE 968, 6 LRA 193; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Doane, 115 Ind. 435, 17 NE 913, 7 AmSR 451, 1 LRA 157; Cleveland, etc.. R. Co. v. Jones, 51 Ind. A. 245, 99 NE 503. Iowa.-Drummy V. Minneapolis. etc., R. Co., 153 Iowa 479, 133 NW 655; Dieckmann v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 145 Iowa 550, 121 NW 676, 139 AmSR 420, 31 LRANS 338; McNaughton v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 136 Iowa 177, 113 NW 844; Dieckmann v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 105 NW 526. Kan.-Irvin V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 81 Kan. 649, 106 P 1063, 26 LRA NS 739; Atchison, etc., R. Co. V. Allen, 75 Kan. 190, 88 P 966, 10 LRANS 576. Ky.-Louisville, etc.. R. Co. Smith, 9 KyL 404. V. Me.-Polland v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 112 Me. 286, 92 A 38; Woodbury v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 110 Me. 224, 85 A 753, 43 LRANS 682; Maxfield v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 100 Me. 79, 84, 60 A 710 [quot Cyc]. Mass.--Jordan v. New York, etc.. R. Co., 165 Mass. 346, 43 NE 111, 52 AmSR 522, 32 LRA 161; Keefe v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 142 Mass. 251, 7 NE 874. Mich.-McCormick v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 141 Mich. 17, 104 NW 390. Minn.-Hull v. Minneapolis, etc, R. Co., 116 Minn. 349, 133 NW 852. Miss.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. Daniels, 96 Miss. 314, 50 S 721, 27 LRANS 128. Mo.-Joyce v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 219 Mo. 344, 118 SW 21; Fullerton v. Fordyce, 144 Mo. 519, 44 SW 1053; Barth v. Kansas City El. R. Co.. 142 Mo. 535, 44 SW 778; Eichorn v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 130 Mo. 575, N. J.-Exton v. Central R. Co., 63 N. J. L. 356, 46 A 1099, 56 LRA 508. N. Y.-Weldon v. New York, etc., R. Co., 159 App. Div. 649, 144 NYS 868; McCormack V. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 132 App. Div. 703, 117 NYS 532 [rev 61 Misc. 601, 113 NYS 1006]; Fox v. New York, 5 App. Div. 349, 39 NYS 309; Redner v. Lehigh, etc., R. Co., 73 Hun 562, 26 NYS 1050 [aff 148 N. Y. 733 mem, 42 NE 725 mem]; Clussman v. Long Island R. Co., 9 Hun 618 [aff 73 N. Y. 606]; Liscomb v. New Jersey R., etc., Co., 6 Lans. 75; Kiernan v. Manhattan R. Co., 27 Misc. 841 mem, 58 NYS 394 [rev on other grounds 28 Misc. 516, 59 NYS 626]. N. C.-Anderson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 161 N. C. 462, 77 SE 402; Mangum v. North Carolina R. Co., 145 N. C. 152, 58 SE 913, 122 AmSR 437, 13 LRANS 589. etc., R. Okl.-Mayne v. Chicago, Co., 12 Okl. 10, 69 P 933. Or.-Finseth v. Suburban R. Co., 32 Or. 1, 51 P 84, 39 LRA 517. Tex.-Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, 78 Tex. 397, 14 SW 1034. Va.-Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. V. Mathews, 114 Va. 173, 76 SE 288. Wash.-Harris v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 65 Wash. 27, 117 P 601. W. Va.-Barker v. Ohio River R. Co., 51 W. Va. 423, 41 SE 148, 90 AmSR 808. Ont.-Morrison v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 28 Ont. L. 319, 12 DomLR 344, 4 OntWN 889, 15 CanRCas 406 [dism app 27 Ont. L. 271 (aff 27 Ont. L. 551)1. [a] Ordinary care to keep in safe condition.-It is the company's duty to exercise ordinary care to keep its waiting room in a safe condition, so that it is inaccurate to instruct that a carrier must keep its waiting room in a reasonably safe condition. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Grimsley, 90 Ark. 64, 117 SW 1064. [b] If the defects in a passageway from a railroad station are trifling, the company is not guilty of failing to provide a reasonably safe passageway, but if, in the opinion of the jury, the defects are serious and the hole is dangerous, there is a breach of its duty. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Mathews, 114 Va. 173, 76 SE 288. 56 55 are known, or ought to be known,5 but not for those caused by mere depressions or irregularities of which it has no knowledge as being of a dangerous character. The carrier's liability in this respect is the same as that of any person to another who has by invitation or inducement come on his premises to transact business.57 This duty, relative to station facilities, is one which the carrier owes to the traveling public,58 and if another attempts to perform it for the carrier it still remains a duty to the traveling public from such other59 and also from the carrier.60 Platforms. It may be necessary for a railroad sylvania R. Co. v. O'Neil, 204 Fed. 584, 123 CCA 52. [e] Sidewalks.-A railroad company is bound to exercise the same degree of care in keeping sidewalks constructed for the use of its passengers in safe condition that a municipal corporation is with respect to public sidewalks. Weldon v. New York, etc., R. Co., 159 App. Div. 649, 144 NYS 868; O'Reilly v. Long Island R. Co., 15 App. Div. 79, 44 NYS 264; Bateman v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 47 Hun (N. Y.) 429. And see Municipal Corporations [28 Cyc 1340 et seq]. [f] Temporary sidewalk.- Where a street railroad company erects a temporary sidewalk over a flooded street for the use of its passengers in going from one car to another, it is not bound to construct the passageway in a manner as reasonably safe "as possible." Finseth v. Suburban R. Co., 32 Or. 1, 51 P 84, 39 LRA 517. [g] Subway leased from transit commission.-A street railroad company which leases a subway constructed and controlled by a transit commission which adopts and installs escalators is not negligent in not asking the commission to change them before the first accident resulting from their mechanism. Theall v. Boston El. R. Co., 213 Mass. 327, 100 NE 543. [h] Vicious dog.-A railroad company may be liable for injury to a passenger by a vicious dog fastened at the station, the employees of the company having had notice of its vicious character. Trinity, etc., R. Co. v. O'Brien, 18 Tex. Civ. A. 690, 46 SW 389. [i] Runaway horse.-A railroad company is not liable for injuries caused to a passenger on its platform by a runaway horse breaking through crossing gates and coming on the platform. Brooks V. Old Colony R. Co., 168 Mass. 164, 46 NE 566. 55. Exton v. New Jersey Cent. R. Co., 63 N. J. L. 356, 46 A 1099, 56 LRA 508 [aff 62 N. J. L. 7, 42 A 486, 56 LRA 508]; Kaplowitz v. Interbor ough Rapid Transit Co., 53 Misc. 646, 103 NYS 721. See also cases supra note 54. [a] Piece of tobacco on step.-A carrier is not liable for injuries sustained by a passenger from stepping on a piece of tobacco lying on a stairway leading to a railroad station, where there is nothing in the evidence to indicate that the tobacco has been there a sufficient length of time to impute notice to the carrier. Kaplowitz V. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 53 Misc. 646, 103 NYS 721. 56. Dilleshaw v. Charleston, etc., R. Co., 85 S. C. 334, 67 SE 304. [a] The highest degree of care does not require as a matter of law that the carrier shall see that its station grounds are kept free from any depressions or irregularities. Dilleshaw v. Charleston, etc., R. Co., 85 S. C. 334, 67 SE 304 (holding that, where a depression in a station platform caused plaintiff's injury, which depression was smooth at the bottom and at the lowest part four or five inches lower than the bottom of the doorsill, and was two to four 63 company, at the usual stopping places, to furnish and maintain platforms suitable and adequate for taking up and setting down passengers, and to exercise reasonable care to keep the platform in a reasonably safe condition regardless of its ownership;62 and this rule applies at a flag station, but it has been held that it does not apply at a place other than a regular or usual stopping place. The carrier must construct and maintain a platform in such a reasonably safe condition that passengers may, in the exercise of due care, walk over it, or step from the steps of a car to the platform, or vice versa, in safety.66 In fur 64 65 feet long and a foot and a half to 58. Union Depot, etc., Co. v. 59. See supra § 1319. platform for the use of passengers, but uses a box only eleven inches square on the top and a little larger at the bottom, it fails to furnish sufficient platform accommodations, regardless of the length of time during which such box has been used, the number of persons who have used it, or the amount of expert testimony as to its safety. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Wortham, 73 Tex. 25, 10 SW 741, 3 LRA 368. [d] Movable platform.-The liability of a railroad company for inLon-juries to a person attempting to board a train, which injuries are caused by the inadequacy of a movable platform to cover the entire space between the permanent platform and the entrance to its train, is to be determined on the footing of what might reasonably be required of it in the light of knowledge existing at the time of the accident, and not of that acquired afterward. Plummer v. Boston El. R. Co., 198 Mass. 499, 84 NE 849. 60. Il-McFadden v. Chicago, etc., R. Ind.-Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. V. La.-Turner v. Vicksburg, etc., R. R. Mass.-Savageau V. Boston, etc., Co., 210 Mass. 164, 96 NE 67 N. J.-Feil v. West Jersey, etc., R. N. C.-Pineus V. Atlantic Coast Okl.-Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Cal- Pa.-Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Zebe, Va.-Reed v. Axtell, 84 Va. 231, 4 Wis.-Tarczek v. Chicago, etc., R. [a] Platform in general use.- [b] Where a passenger is unable to get on the station platform because it is narrow and crowded, and is struck and killed by the train, there is evidence for the jury as to the negligence of the company in not providing suitable and safe accommodation for access to its trains. Young v. New York, etc., R. Co., 171 Mass. 33. 50 NE 455, 41 LRA 193. [c] Boxes in lieu of platforms. Where a company fails to furnish a Duty to stop train at platform see supra §§ 1269, 1340. 62. U. S.-Seymour V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 21 F. Cas. No. 12,685, 3 Biss. 43. Ark.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Fuqua, 114 Ark. 112, 169 SW 786. Ga.-Georgia Northern R. Co. v. Hardwick, 12 Ga. A. 268, 77 SE 102. Mich. Sweet v. Detroit United R. Co., 141 Mich. 650, 105 NW 132. N. H.-Haselton V. Portsmouth, etc., St. R. Co., 71 N. H 589, 53 A 1016. Wash.-Harris v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 65 Wash. 27, 117 P 601. [a] Platform in street. (1) Even though a street railroad company is not bound to furnish platforms in the street for its passengers to use in boarding and alighting, where it erects platforms in such a way as to invite passengers to pass over them on leaving the cars, it is bound to keep them in a safe condition. Harris v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 65 Wash. 27, 117 P 601. (2) A carrier by street railroad is not bound to build platforms in the city street on a level with the rails. Sweet V. Detroit United R. Co., 141 Mich. 650, 105 NW 132. [b] Where a street railroad company has adopted a platform and has invited the public to use it in getting on and off the cars, it is its duty to keep the platform in a reasonably safe condition for that purpose; and it is immaterial whether or not the platform was built by the company or is in a public street. Haselton v. Portsmouth, etc., St. R. Co., 71 N. H. 589, 53 A 1016. Care and use of premises generally see supra § 1338. 63. Pineus v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 140 N. C. 450, 53 SE 297, 111 AmSR 856. 64. Sellers v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co.. 40 Ind. A. 319, 81 NE 1087. 65. Maxfield v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 100 Me. 79, 60 A 710; Dotson v. Erie R. Co., 68 N. J. L. 679, 54 A 827; Harris v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 65 Wash. 27, 117 P 601. 66. Ill-Bankwitz v. Northwestern El. R. Co., 182 111. A. 55. Mass.-Anshen V. Boston El. R. Co., 205 Mass. 32, 91 NE 157; Field v. Boston El. R. Co., 188 Mass. 222, 74 therance of this duty the carrier must exercise due NE 334; Willworth v. Boston El. R. N. Y.-Ryan v. Manhattan R. Co., 121 N. Y. 126, 23 NE 1131; Boyce v. Manhattan R. Co., 118 N. Y. 314, 23 NE 304; Woolsey v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 123 App. Div. 631, 108 NYS 16; Gabriel v. Long Island R. Co., 54 App. Div. 41, 66 NYS 301; Fox v. New York, 70 Hun 181, 24 NYS 43; Barnes v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 42 Misc. 622, 87 NYS 608. Tex.-Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Shelton, 30 Tex. Civ. A. 72, 69 SW 653, 70 SW 359 [aff 96 Tex. 301, 72 SW 165]. [a] Distance from tracks.-(1) A carrier must locate its platforms so close to the tracks that it will afford a convenient means of entrance and exit for its passengers, to and from its cars. Dotson v. Erie R. Co., 68 N. J. L. 679, 54 A 827. (2) A space of ten inches between the station and the car platforms does not of itself constitute negligence. Woolsey V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 123 App. | Div. 631, 108 NYS 16. (3) The fact that a platform is fourteen inches below the step of a car and six inches distant from such step horizontally does not alone establish such negligence on the part of the company as will render it liable for an injury resulting to a passenger from stepping between the step and the platform in alighting from the car, in the absence of other evidence that such construction is unusual, faulty, or dangerous, or that it has resulted in injury to others. Gabriel v. Long Island R. Co., 54 App. Div. 41, 66 NYS 301. (4) An elevated railroad, stopping its cars at a platform where it is dangerous for passengers to alight, by reason of an open space between a car and the platform, is liable for injuries sustained by a passenger falling through such open space while attempting to alight. Bankwitz v. Northwestern El. R. Co., 182 Ill. A. 55. (5) But neither the stopping of a car at a curved part of the platform, failure to use wider cars, nor failure to give warning of the space beneath the car step and the platform is negligence, in the absence of proof that the car was not stopped at the proper place, or that wider cars could have been used. Seale v. Boston El. R. Co., 214 Mass. 59, 100 NE 1020. [b] Space necessary for passage of cars. Where a subway platform is constructed according to law, and the space left between the edge of the platform and the cars is necessary to a safe passage of the cars along the platform, the carrier is not guilty of negligence merely because of the existence of such space, rendering it liable for injuries to a passenger who falls into the same while attempting to board a train. Coogan V. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 50 Misc. 562, 99 NYS 382. 67. Ark. Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Watson, 102 Ark. 499, 144 SW 922. Ill. Bankwitz v. Northwestern El. R. Co., 182 11. A. 55. Ky.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Turner, 137 Ky. 730, 126 SW 372, 136 AmSR 317. Mich. Crowe v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 142 Mich. 692, 106 NW 395. Mo.-Fullerton v. Fordyce, 144 Mo. 519, 44 SW 1053; Biggie v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 159 Mo. A. 350, 140 SW 602; McClanahan v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 147 Mo. A. 386, 126 SW 535. sengers because of dangerous obstacles on its platform on the ground that they were placed there by another, such as an express company who was permitted to use the platform for its own purpose; nor will the fact that a passenger is pushed into such a defective place shift the responsibility for the injury, as the carrier is bound to know N. Y.-Liscomb v. New Jersey R., | ing trains. Brown v. Ohio, etc., R. etc., Co., 6 Lans. 75. Co., 138 Ind. 648, 37 NE 717, 38 NE 176. 68 69 See also cases supra notes 65, 66. "It is well settled that it is the duty of a railroad company to keep in safe condition its station platform where passengers and those who have purchased tickets with a view to take passage on its trains will ordinarily go, and for failure to exercise ordinary care in that regard the company is liable for any consequent injury to one of its passenger." Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Watson, 102 Ark. 499, 502, 144 SW 922. [a] Illustrations.-(1) A hole six inches deep and containing a loose obstacle in the bottom thereof, situated in a station platform on which passengers are invited to step when alighting from cars, is a negligent defect. Crowe v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 142 Mich. 692, 106 NW 395. (2) Where, by the breaking of a plank in a station platform, a hole six feet long and eight inches wide was made, which, although it could have been repaired in a few minutes, was left unmended and unguarded for four days, the railroad company was guilty of negligence, as a matter of law, as against a passenger injured thereby. Fullerton v. Fordyce, 144 Mo. 519, 44 SW 1053. (3) Where a hole over three feet long, six inches wide, and twelve inches deep remained in a depot platform for three or four weeks, it existed long enough for the carrier, in the exercise of the care which it owed to its passengers, to have discovered and repaired it; and the carrier was guilty of gross negligence, where its agent had actual knowledge of the presence of the hole and it was not repaired. Biggie v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 159 Mo. A. 350, 140 SW 602. 68. U. S.-Baker v. Clark, 99 Fed. 911, 40 CCA 17; Seymour v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 21 F. Cas. No. 12,685, 3 Biss. 43. Ark. Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Watson, 102 Ark. 499, 144 SW 922. Ill. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Stevenson, 122 Ill. A. 654; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Reese, 93 Ill. A. 657. Ind.-Brown v. Ohio, etc., R. Co., 138 Ind. 648, 37 NE 717, 38 NE 176. Kan.-Irvin v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 81 Kan. 649, 106 P 1063, 26 LRANS 739. La. Strain v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 123 La. 407, 49 S 2. Miss.-Bell v. Southern R. Co., 94 Miss. 440, 49 S 120. N. Y.-Pitkin v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 94 App. Div. 31, 87 NYS 906; Palmer v. Platt, 27 Hun 534. N. C.-Roberts v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 155 N. C. 79, 70 SE 1080. "This duty not only requires the railroad company as a carrier of passengers to exercise ordinary care to see that the station platform itself is in safe condition and free from any defect from which a consequent injury might be reasonably expected to result, but also to keep such station platform free from obstructions and dangerous instrumentalities, especially at the time when passengers are expected to go to and from its cars." Kansas City Southern R. Co. V. Watson, 102 Ark. 499, 503, 144 SW 922. [a] It is negligence for a railroad company to lay an obstruction consisting of a plank two inches high on a station platform where passengers may be hastening to and from the cars, or where trainmen may be moving rapidly to execute the orders of their superiors, or to attend to their duties in connection with mov [b] Trucks.-(1) It is negligence to permit a truck to stand so near the track as to strike a passenger who is boarding a train (Bell v. Southern R. Co., 94 Miss. 440, 49 S 120), (2) or to leave an express truck on an unlighted station platform, at nighttime and within five inches of a passing passenger train (Irvin v.. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 81 Kan. 649, 106 P 1063, 26 LRANS 739). (3) Passengers on a station platform have a right equal to that of hand trucks, and those who draw the trucks owe such passengers a duty, not only to give warning of their approach, but also to proceed carefully and to be constantly on the alert not to strike those who are not aware of their danger. Palmer v. Platt, 27 Hun (N. Y.) 534. (4) Leaving a baggage truck at the very end of the station platform, at or near the place where it has been used in unloading baggage from the baggage car of a train, and failing to light the platform at that point, is not such negligence as will render the railroad company liable, where a person, while endeavoring, by running alongside the rapidly receding train, to restore a child in his arms to its mother who is standing on the platform of a car, stumbles over the truck in the dark and drops the child, to its injury, as the railroad is not bound to foresee and guard against such extraordinary conduct. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Calhoun, 213 U. S. 1, 29 SCt 321, 53 L. ed. 671 [rev 18 Okl. 75, 89 P 207, 11 AnnCas 681]. [c] Baggage. (1) A carrier is not negligent in placing trunks on a station platform, where a sufficient passageway is left. Strain v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 123 La. 407, 49 S 2. (2) The fact that a trunk was placed on the platform, so near the track that a passenger attempting to board a train in motion was injured by coming in contact with it, may be considered in determining the carrier's liability. Roberts v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 155 N. C. 79, 70 SE 1080. [d] Passenger boarding moving train.-Managers and conductors of railroad trains must take notice that passengers, while trains are yet at station platforms, do and will, sometimes, get on them when in slow motion; and, as a high degree of care is due for the protection of persons alighting from and boarding trains at stations, it is the duty of the management of railroads to see to it that the platforms at the stations are unobstructed by trucks or baggage, or otherwise, within a safe distance from the side of the train before leaving the station. Chicago. etc., R. Co. v. Gore, 105 Ill. A. 16 [aff 202 Ill. 188, 66 NE 1063, 95 Am SR 224]. 69. Irvin v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 81 Kan. 649, 106 P 1063, 26 LRANS 739; Mangum v. North Carolina R. Co., 145 N. C. 152, 58 SE 913, 122 AmSR 437, 13 LRANS 589. [a] Newspaper porter.-A carrier is liable for injury to a passenger by the negligence of a newspaper porter while moving a truck along a platform with the carrier's consent, that the newspaper company may also be liable not relieving the carrier from its duty to furnish a passenger a safe passageway to its train. Mangum v. North Carolina R. Co., 145 N. Č. 152, 58 SE 913, 122 Am SR 437, 13 LRANS 589 and note. 70. Indianapolis St. R. Co. v. Robinson, 157 Ind. 414, 61 NE 936. Protection from crowds generally see infra § 1345. 71. U. S.-Southern R. Co. V. Rhodes, 86 Fed. 422, 30 CCA 157. Ark. Huddleston v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 90 Ark. 378, 119 SW 280. Ky. Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Baker, 158 Ky. 224, 164 SW 799. Mass.-Snow v. Fitchburg R. Co., 136 Mass. 552, 49 AmR 40. Mo.-Hughes v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 127 Mo. 447, 30 SW 127. N. Y.-Carpenter v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 97 N. Y. 494, 49 AmR 540; Ayres v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 77 Hun 414, 28 NYS 789. [a] Where mail is thrown on a station platform from swiftly passing trains, it is the carrier's duty to protect passengers and others lawfully on its platform against injuries from the mail sacks, by requiring them to be thrown at a particular place, by posting warning notices, or by other available means. Huddleston v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 90 Ark. 378, 119 SW 280. 72. Goddard v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 179 Mass. 52, 60 NE 486; Scholtz v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 48 Misc. 619, 95 NYS 557; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Mathews, 114 Va. 173, 76 SE 288. re [a] Banana skin on station platform (1) A passenger cannot cover for injuries received by slipping on a banana skin lying on a station platform, in the absence of evidence showing how long it was lying there. Goddard v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 179 Mass. 52, 60 NE 486. (2) The fact that a banana peeling is on a stairway leading to a street railroad station, on which a passenger steps, causing him to fall, will not support a verdict against the company for injuries, in the absence of a showing of negligence in permitting it to remain there. Benson v. Manhattan R. Co., 31 Misc. 723, 65 NYS 271. (3) But it has been held that even in the absence of evidence of notice of the presence of a banana peel on the platform defendant was liable for injuries caused by a passenger slipping on a banana peel on the station platform, as the carrier was bound to the exercise of the highest degree of care, skill, and diligence for the safety of the passenger consistent with the mode of conveyance employed. Lapin v. Northwestern El. R. Co., 162 III. A. 296. 73. Munro v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 155 Mo. A. 710, 135 SW 1016; Scholtz v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 48 Misc. 619, 95 NYS 557. cate the length of time during which it was on the platform, or the cause of its presence there, sufficient to charge the carrier with negligence. Scholtz v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 48 Misc. 619, 95 NYS 557. 74. U. S.-O'Field v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 189 Fed. 721, 111 CCA 259; Scanlan v. Tenney, 72 Fed. 225; Grimes v. Pennsylvania Co., 36 Fed. 72; Holmes v. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 5 Fed. 523, 6 Sawy. 276. Ala. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Arnold, 84 Ala. 159, 4 S 359, 5 AmSR 354. R. Co. v. Ark. St. Louis, etc., Briggs, 87 Ark. 581, 113 SW 644; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Battle, 69 Ark. 369, 63 SW 805; Fordyce v. Merrill, 49 Ark. 277, 5 SW 329. Cal. Teale v. Southern Pac. Co., 20 Cal. A. 570, 129 P 949. Del.-Wallace v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 13 Del. 529, 18 A 818. Ill-Ardison V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 155 Ill. A. 274 [aff 249 111. 300, 94 NE 501]. Ind.-Pere Marquette R. Co. v. Strange, 171 Ind. 160, 84 NE 819, 85 NE 1026, 20 LRANS 1041; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Treadway, 143 Ind. 689, 40 NE 807, 41 NE 794; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Treadway, 142 Ind. 475, 40 NE 807, 41 NE 794; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Lucas, 119 Ind. 583, 21 NE 968, 6 LRA 193. Iowa.-Dieckmann v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 145 Iowa 250, 121 NW 676, 139 AmSR 420, 31 LRANS 338; Merryman v. Chicago Great Western R. Co., 135 Iowa 591, 113 NW 357; Hiatt v. Des Moines, etc., R. Co., 96 Iowa 169. 64 NW 766. Kan.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. Marshall, 71 Kan. 866, 81 P 169. V. Ky.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Turner. 137 Ky. 730, 126 SW 372, 136 AmSR 317; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. V. Robinson, 135 Ky. 850, 123 SW 308; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Payne, 133 Ky. 539, 118 SW 352, 19 AnnCas 294; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Ricketts, 52 SW 939. 21 KyL 662, 37 SW 952, 18 KyL 687. La. Abney v. Louisiana, etc., R. Co., 127 La. 437, 53 S 678; Moses v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 39 La. Ann. 649, 2 S 567, 4 AmSR 231; Reynolds v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 37 La. Ann. 694; Peniston v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 34 La. Ann. 777, 44 AmR 444. Mass.- -Savageau V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 210 Mass. 164, 96 NE 67. Minn. -Buenemann V. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 32 Minn. 390, 20 NW 379. Miss.-Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. McShan, 81 Miss. 460, 33 S 223. Mo.-Sargent v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 114 Mo. 348, 21 SW 823, 19 LRA 460; Gerhart v. Wabash R. Co., 110 Mo. A. 105, 84 SW 100. N. Y.-Becker V. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 128 App. Div. 455, 112 NYS 816; Green v. Middlesex Valley R. Co., 31 App. Div. 412, 53 NYS 500; Fox v. New York, 5 App. Div. 349, 39 NYS 309; Miller v. Ft. Lee Park, etc., Co., 73 Hun 150, 25 NYS 924; Osborn v. Union Ferry Co., 53 Barb. 629. [a] Knowledge of defect.-(1) Where a defect in a platform is not directly caused by the carrier's employees, it must be shown that it or its employees knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care could have known, of the defect in time to have had a reasonable opportunity to repair it, and that they failed so to do, in order to make the company liable for injuries to a passenger therefrom. Munro v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 155 Mo. A. 710, 135 SW 1016. N. C.-Leggett v. Atlantic Coast (2) The existence of any obstruction Line R. Co., 168 N. C. 366, 84 SE 357; over which a passenger falls on a Wagner v. Atlantic Coast Line R. station platform is not, in the ab- Co., 147 N. C. 315, 61 SE 171, 19 LRA sence of evidence or of something NS 1028; Ruffin v. Atlantic, etc., R. about the obstruction itself to indi- Co., 142 N. C. 120, 55 SE 86. 74 N. D.-Messenger v. Valley City St., etc., R. Co., 21 N. D. 82, 88, 128 NW 1023. 32 LRANS 881 [cit Cyc]. Oh.-Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Anderson, 21 Oh. Cir. Ct. 288, 11 Oh. Cir. Dec. 765. Okl. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Calhoun, 18 Okl. 75, 89 P 207, 11 Ann Cas 681. Or-Abbot v. Oregon R. Co., 46 Or. 549, 80 P 1012, 114 AmSR 885, 1 LRA NS 851, 7 AnnCas 961 and note. Pa. Hall v. Bessemer, etc., R. Co., 36 Pa. Super. 556, 561 [quot Cyc]. S. C.-Williford v. Southern R. Co., 85 S. C. 301, 67 SE 302. Tex.-Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, 78 Tex. 397, 14 SW 1034; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Hooper, (Civ. A.) 184 SW 347; Stamp v. Eastern R. Co., (Civ. A.) 161 SW 450; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Wheeler, 52 Tex. Civ. A. 603, 116 SW 83; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Ratley, (Civ. A.) 87 SW 407; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Shelton, 30 Tex. Civ. A. 72, 69 SW 653, 70 SW 359 [aff 96 Tex. 301, 72 SW 165]; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Lee, 21 Tex. Civ. A. 174, 51 SW 351, 57 SW 573; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Reich, (Civ. A.) 32 SW 817; Rozwadosfskie v. International, etc., R. Co., 1 Tex. Civ. A. 487, 20 SW 872. Va.-Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. V. Smith, 103 Va. 326, 49 SE 487; Alexandria, etc., R. Co. v. Herndon, 87 Va. 193, 12 SE 289; Reed v. Axtell, 84 Va. 231, 4 SE 587. Wash. Valentine v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 70 Wash. 95, 126 P 99; Harris v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 65 Wash. 27, 117 P 601. Wis.-Skow v. Green Bay, etc., R. Co., 141 Wis. 21, 123 NW 138; Ellis v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 120 Wis. 645, 98 NW 942; Duell v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 115 Wis. 516, 92 NW 269. "The law imposes on a railroad company engaged in carrying persons for hire the duty of exercising reasonable care in keeping its platforms, approaches thereto, and station grounds, so far as passengers would naturally resort to them, properly lighted at night for a reasonable time next prior to the arrival or immediately following the departure of a train which its time cards specify will stop at night to take on or put off passengers." Abbot v. Oregon R. Co., 46 Ör. 549, 560, 80 P 1012, 114 AmSR 885, 1 LRANS 851, 7 Ann Cas 961. [a] Failure to furnish lights as negligence.—(1) Where it may reasonably be assumed that the necessities of the passengers may require lights, a failure to furnish them is negligence. Valentine v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 70 Wash. 95, 126 P 99. (2) Where a carrier stopped its train on a dark night in an unlighted locality where there was no platform, and failed to provide any light or intermediate rest between the lower step of the car and the surface of the ground which was rough, and by reason thereof a female passenger was injured while attempting to alight, the carrier was guilty of actionable negligence. Ellis v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 120 Wis. 645, 98 NW 942. (3) Where it is not obviously so dangerous to permit passengers to pass from a train to an unlighted station platform that the court can say that it was negligence |