larly where a statute so requires;75 and the performance of this duty is not excused by the fact that there is no system of public lighting in the city in which the carrier's station is located,76 or that the city fails to furnish lights for the carrier's premises." Applications of rule. This duty of keeping a carrier's premises lighted applies while the relation of passenger and carrier exists, as where a passenger leaves the train for refreshment, for the sending of telegrams, and the like;78 .78 and such duty extends to quasi stations or stopping places," and to flag stations, at which the carrier is charged with the knowledge that there will be passengers.80 so to do, it is error for the court in its charge to assume that it was the duty of the carrier to furnish light. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Anderson, 21 Oh. Cir. Ct. 288, 11 Oh. Cir. Dec. 765. [b] Highest degree of care.-It has been held that a carrier owes to a passenger the exercise of the highest degree of care for his safety consistent with the practical operation of its road, and, if lighting its platform and premises is necessary to the exercise of such degree of care, it is the duty of the carrier so to do. Ardison v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 155 Ill. A. 274 [aff 249 Ill. 300, 94 NE 501]; McFadden v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 149 Ill. A. 298 (holding that in case of any defect or absence of light causing an injury, which human care, vigilance, and forethought reasonably exercised could have discovered and guarded against and provided for consistently with the practical operation of the road, the law holds the carrier responsible, but such rule does not require the carrier to foresee and provide against accidents never before known and not reasonably to be apprehended). is [c] A street car company bound to keep its platforms in the street in a safe condition for passengers by properly lighting them if necessary, irrespective of the city's failure to light the street at that point, SO that its failure to light the platforms causing injury to a passenger is actionable negligence, the platforms having no guard rails. Harris v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 65 Wash. 27, 117 P 601. is un [d] Special train.—(1) Where a passenger arrives at his destination on a special train on a dark night, and following other passengers who strike matches to aid them in securing the way to the street he passes along the platform which lighted, and unguarded by a railing, and falls off the side thereof with a companion, and is hurt, the railroad company is liable. Gerhart v. Wabash R. Co., 110 Mo. A. 105, 84 SW 100. (2) The knowledge of a train dispatcher that passengers arriving on a special train over another road at night intends to take a train on his road does not bind his road to light its station platform until reasonable time prior to the arrival of its train. Abbot v. Oregon R. Co., 46 Or. 549, 80 P 1012, 114 AmSR 885. 1 LRANS 851, 7 AnnCas 961. a [e] That a row of box cars shuts off the light from the alighting place does excuse the carrier from liability for its failure to have such alighting place properly lighted. Teale v. Southern Pac. Co., 20 Cal. A. 570, 129 P 949. 75. See statutory provisions. [a] Common-law duty not affected.-A statutory provision requiring stations to be kept properly lighted for a certain time before and after the arrival of each train does not relieve the carrier of its commonlaw duty of protecting passengers and others rightfully on its premises. Drummy v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 153 Iowa 479. 133 NW 655. See also infra 1346 note 92 [a]. 79 But it does not apply to a passenger who goes to the station or attempts to board a train an unreasonable length of time before its departure;81 nor does it extend to a portion of the station grounds where passengers cannot reasonably be expected to resort.82 The extent of lighting required at any particular station depends on the amount and nature of the business, and the character, situation, and surroundings of the station with reference to tracks and other physical conditions reasonably calculated to affect the security of persons in the proper use of the premises and in the exercise of ordinary care. [ 1344] d. Accumulations of Snow and Ice. A [b] In Texas Rev. St. (1895) art 4521. requiring railroads under a penalty to keep their stations or passenger houses lighted and open to ingress and egress of passengers does not apply to station platforms or other places where passengers are expected to get on or off trains. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. Barnett, 19 Tex. Civ. A. 626, 47 SW 1039. 76. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Stevenson, 122 Ill. A. 654. 77. Harris v. Seattle, etc.. R. Co., 65 Wash. 27, 117 P 601; Owen V. Washington, etc., R. Co., 29 Wash. 207, 69 P 757. [a] Imputed negligence-Where a railroad company had made diligent effort to have the city furnish a light for its premises where passengers alighted from trains, and the city had undertaken so to do. the company in good faith relying thereon, if the city was negligent in this respect, such negligence was imputed to the company. Owen V. Washington, etc., R. Co., 29 Wash. 207, 69 P 757. 78. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Stewart, 228 U. S. 357, 33 SCt 548, 57 L. ed. 875 [aff 183 Fed. 575, 105 CCA 646]: Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. Mathes, (Tex. Civ. A.) 73 SW 411. 79. Wagner v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 147 N. C. 315, 61 SE 171, 19 LRANS 1028. 80. Cleveland, etc.. R. Co. v. Harvey, 45 Ind. A. 153, 90 NE 318. 81. Sweany v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 167 Mo. A. 137, 151 SW 198; Hodges v. New Hanover Transit Co., 107 N. C. 576, 12 SE 597. Going to or awaiting train or car generally see supra §§ 1040, 1311. 82. Ga.-Stiles v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 65 Ga, 370, Ky.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Hobbs, 155 Ky. 130, 159 SW 682, 47 LRANS 1149. Tex.-Davis v. Houston, etc., R. Co., 29 Tex. Civ. A. 42, 68 SW 733. Va.-Mitchell v. Southern R. Co., 118 Va. 642, 88 SE 56. Wis.-Hempton v. Green Bay, etc., R. Co., 162 Wis. 62, 155 NW 927. [a] Illustrations.-(1) Where a passenger train was temporarily stopped some distance from the station for receiving and delivering passengers, until two freight trains in advance of it could be moved out of the way, and plaintiff boarded such train in search of his wife and child who were thereon as passengers, and in attempting to move from one car to another by passing around an intervening car stepped off the platform into a culvert fifteen or twenty feet deep which he could not see on account of the darkness of the night, thereby sustaining serious personal injury, the carrier was not liable therefor. Stiles v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 65 Ga. 370. (2) Where plaintiff after leaving defendant's station passed beyond the station grounds along a path on the right of way at night and fell into a turntable pit, she was but a licensee as to whom the railroad company owed no duty to light or otherwise guard the pit. Louisville. etc.. R. Co. v. Hobbs, 155 Ky. 130, 159 SW 682, 47 LRANS 1149. [b] Shed at flag station.-A rail 83 road company not being liable to furnish a light at a shed at a flag station is not liable for injuries received by a passenger because of the absence of a light. Mitchell V. Southern R. Co., 118 Va. 642, 88 SE 56. [c] Back way to station.Where defendant carrier had extended no express or implied invitation to passengers or others to use a back way to reach its station or trains, it was not required to maintain lights or to guard the way. Hempton v. Green Bay, etc., R. Co., 162 Wis. 62, 155 NW 927. To what premises duty to exercise extends see supra § 1337. 83. 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; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Marshall, 71 Kan. 866, 81 P 169; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Robinson, 135 Ky. 850, 123 SW 308; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cruse, 123 Ky. 463, 96 SW 821, 29 KyL 914, 8 LRANS 299, 13 AnnCas 593; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Ricketts, 37 SW 952, 18 KyL 687; Abbot v. Óregon R. Co., 46 Or. 549. 80 P 1012, 114 AmSR 885, 1 LRANS 851, 7 AnnCas 961. [a] "What constitutes a reasonable time during which such premises must be kept lighted is determined by the circumstances of each particular case, and depends upon the size and importance of the station and the number of persons who lawfully visit it at night for the purpose of transacting business with the railroad company." Abbot v. Oregon R. Co., 46 Or. 549, 560, 80 P 1012, 114 AmSR 885, 1 LRANS 851, 7 AnnCas 961 and note. [b] Sufficiency of lights.—(1) A railway company need not so light its platform as "to admonish" passengers alighting from trains that the platform is "exclusively used for passengers" if it so lights the platform that, with ordinary care, passengers can ascertain that it is the platform used for passengers. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Ricketts, 37 SW 952, 18 KyL 687. (2) Having its car steps and depot platform so reasonably lighted that the ordinary traveler can see sufficiently to alight in safety, being all that is required of a carrier, it is error to instruct that it was its duty to have them SO lighted that "plaintiff" might clearly see them. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cruse, 123 Ky. 463, 96 SW 821, 29 KyL 914, 8 LRANS 299, 13 Ann Cas 593. [c] Where the trainmen are on the platform with their lanterns to furnish passengers light during the time the train stops, the carrier is not liable because they do not remain on the platform after the train starts. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Robinson, 135 Ky. 850, 123 SW 308. is [d] Unreasonable hours.-It not the duty of a carrier to keep its waiting room and platform lighted in the nighttime at unreasonable hours, depending on the size and importance of the station and the arrival and departure of trains. Louis [§ 1345] e. Protection from Crowds.86 The carrier must use reasonable care in avoiding or con ville, etc., R. Co. v. Treadway, 143 Ind. 689. 40 NE 807, 41 NE 794. 84. Ill. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Keegan, 210 I11. 150, 71 NE 321 [aff 112 Ill. A. 28]; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Smith. 59 Ill. A. 242 [aff 162 Ill. 185, 44 NE 390]. Ind.-Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. V. Harris, 38 Ind. A. 77, 77 NE 1051. Iowa. Waterbury v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 104 Iowa 32, 73 NW 341. V. Ky.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. Cockerel, 33 SW 407, 17 KyL 1037. Me.-Rodick v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 109 Me. 530, 85 A 41; Maxfield v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 100 Me. 79, 60 A 710. Md.-Smith v. Northern Cent. R. Co., 119 Md. 481, 87 A 259. Mich.-Lemon V. Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co., 136 Mich. 647, 100 NW 22. Minn. Hull v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 116 Minn. 349, 133 NW 852. N. Y.-Kelly v. Manhattan R. Co., 112 N. Y. 443, 20 NE 383, 3 LRA 74; Weston v. New York El. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 595; Speck v. International R. Co., 133 App. Div. 802, 118 NYS 71; Strong v. Long Island R. Co., 129 App. Div. 361, 113 NYS 828; McGuire v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 104 App. Div. 105, 93 NYS 316; Rusk v. Manhattan R. Co., 46 App. Div. 100, 61 NYS 384; Timpson v. Manhattan R. Co., 52 Hun 489, 5 NYS 685; Ainley v. Manhattan R. Co., 47 Hun 206; Weston V. New York El. R. Co., 42 N. Y. Super. 156 [aff_73 N. Y. 595]. [a] Duty a relative one.-While the duty exists for a street railroad company to keep each stopping place where there are no street intersections free of ice and the snow leveled down it must be a relative one, taking into consideration the weather on the one hand and the safety of passengers on the other. Speck v. International R. Co., 133 App. Div. 802, 118 NYS 71. [b] A failure to put sand, ashes, or sawdust (1) on a light snow and thin ice on a platform, at the bottom of stairs at an elevated railroad station, is not negligence, where there is no such obvious danger to passengers that the company is bound to anticipate that injury might be sustained by reason of it. Rusk v. Manhattan R. Co.. 46 App. Div. 100, 61 NYS 384. (2) But where a carrier, after a heavy snowfall, scrapes the sidewalk on its wharf, but allows ice to remain at places on and outside the walk, without sanding it, it is liable to a passenger for injuries from a fall on the ice. Rodick v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 109 Me. 530, 85 A 41. [c] A ferry company must exercise reasonable care in the maintenance of the approaches to its ferry house, but no negligence can be predicated upon the failure to remove snow and ice within an hour after it has fallen. Meginn v. Ramsdell, 163 App. Div. 232, 148 NYS 415. 85. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Keegan, 210 Ill. 150, 71 NE 321 [aff 112 Ill. A. 28]. 86. Overcrowding of vehicle see infra § 1382. 87. U. S.-Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Stockton, 184 Fed, 422, 106 CCA 433; Taylor v. Pennsylvania Co., 50 Fed. 755. Conn.-Baldwin V. Fair Haven, etc., R. Co., 68 Conn. 567, 37 A 418. III.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Treat, 75 Ill. A. 327 [aff 179 Ill. 576, 54 NE 290]. Mass.-Gascievicz v. Boston El. R. Co., 222 Mass. 266, 110 NE 269; Collins v. Boston El. R. Co., 217 Mass. 420, 105 NE 353, 51 LRANS 1154; trolling crowds of persons at its stations imperiling the safety of passengers.87 [§ 1346] f. Duty to Keep Station Open, Heated, and Comfortable. It is not only the duty of a railroad company to maintain stations and waiting rooms for the comfort of its passengers, 88 but it is also its duty to keep the same open for a reasonable time,89 or for such time as a statute90, or a Morse v. Newton St. R. Co., 213 Mass. 595, 100 NE 1007; Kelley v. Boston El. R. Co., 210 Mass. 454, 96 NE 1031. Mich.-Cousineau V. Muskegon Tract., etc., Co., 145 Mich. 314, 108 NW 720. N. Y.-Reschke v. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 155 App. Div. 48, 13 NYS 555 [aff 211 N. Y. 602 mem, 105 NE 1097 mem]; Bacon v. Hudson, etc., R. Co., 154 App. Div. 742, 133 NYS 740; Wagner v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 95 App. Div. 219, 88 NYS 791; Dittmar v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 91 App. Div. 378, 86 NYS 878, Dawson v. New York, etc., Bridge, 31 App. Div. 537, 52 NYS 133; McGearty v. Manhattan R. Co., 15 App. Div. 2, 43 NYS 1086. Eng. Fraser v. Caledonian R. Co., 5 F. (Ct. Sess.) 41: McCallum v. North British R. Co., [1908] S. C. 415. [a] Control of crowd.-A railroad company is bound to use reasonable care in providing for the safety and protection of its passengers while in its inclosures, and while being conducted to its trains, with due regard to the number and the character of those on its premises, and with due reference to the risks to which they are exposed; and this duty may require it to provide a suitable number of men properly to control a crowd, and to protect its passengers from the dangers incident thereto. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Treat, 75 Ill. A. 327 [aff 179 Ill. 576, 54 NE 290]. [b] Greater facilities for excursion crowd.-The duty rests on a railroad company which has attracted an unusual number of people to a station by advertising an excursion to furnish greater facilities than usual to accommodate, care for, and protect those who avail themselves of its offer. Harmon v. Flintham, 196 Fed. 635, 116 CCA 309. [c] A subway company's employees (1) should give attention to prevent passengers congregating on a subway platform from congesting or crowding, SO as to endanger the safety of passengers. Bacon v. Hudson, etc., R. Co., 154 App. Div. 742, 139 NYS 740. (2) In submitting the question of a subway company's negligence in failing to protect passengers on its platform from the results of crowding, the standard of care taken should be that of one skillful in carrying on the business, the highest degree of practicable care as in the actual transportation of passengers not being required. Bacon v. Hudson, etc., R. Co., supra. [d] Illustrations of negligence.(1) Where an electric railroad company commonly permitted on its platform a surging crowd desiring to board its trains, and a passenger boarding a train was pushed by a crowd into the space between the platform and the car, it was liable for the injuries sustained. Collins v. Boston El. R. Co., 217 Mass. 420, 105 NE 353, 51 LRANS 1154. (2) Where a street railroad company had entire charge of a platform from which access was obtained to its cars, and permitted passengers to go on the platform only after having paid their fare, the company, was guilty of negligence in permitting the platform to become SO overcrowded that passengers could not enter the cars in safety, and was therefore liable for injuries to a passenger who was injured by being pushed by the crowd against the side of a car and then thrown violently into it. Dittmar v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 91 App. Div. 378, 86 NYS 878. 88. See supra § 1341. 89. Ala.-Waldrop V. Nashville, 90 etc., R. Co., 183 Ala. 226, 62 S 769. Ark.-Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Stanford. 84 Ark. 406, 106 SW 205; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 70 Ark. 136, 66 SW 661, 91 AmSR 74. Ill. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Walker, 217 Ill. 605, 75 NE 520 [aff 118 Ill. A. 397]. Ky.-Sandifer V. Louisville, R. Co., 89 SW 528, 28 KyL 464. etc., S. C-Bessinger v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 99 S. C. 256, 83 SE 457; Neal v. Southern R. Co., 92 S. C. 197, 75 SE 405. Tex.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Rumfield, 55 Tex. Civ. A. 73, 118 SW 810. [a] Flag station.—(1) The failure to open a depot at a flag station for a night train does not render the carrier liable for the death of a child caused by exposure while waiting for such train where those in charge of the child knew the character of the station and that it was not open during the nighttime, and there were places of shelter near the station where they could have gone to wait for the train. Sandifer v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 89 SW 528, 28 KyL 464. (2) Under a statute requiring every railroad to keep its depots lighted and warmed and open to all passengers not less than one hour before the arrival of all passenger trains, and making it liable for damages sustained by its failure so to do, a company would be liable for injuries to a passenger caused by not having its depot open within the required time at a flag station where it sold tickets and maintained a depot for passengers. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Rumfield, 55 Tex. Civ. A. 73, 118 SW 810. [b] Denying use of station.-A railroad company which builds the station house and waiting room at a certain station cannot arbitrarily deny the use thereof to a particular passenger, even though it is not legally required to maintain a waiting room at that particular station by Code (1907) § 5489, requiring the maintenance of depots at stations having a certain population. Waldrop v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., 183 Ala. 226, 62 S 769 (holding also that a railroad company is liable for sickness resulting from the ejection of a passenger from its waiting room, to which she went after getting off the train at her destination, while she was waiting a few minutes for a conveyance to continue her journey, the weather being cold and inclement at the time). [c] Sick passenger.-Where a passenger's condition on reaching the depot at his destination is such that to leave the waiting room at once will endanger his health or safety, he cannot be summarily ejected from the depot, but must be given an opportunity to continue his journey further in safety or to obtain assistance. Waldrop v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., 183 Ala. 226, 62 S 769. Care as to passengers under disability generally supra §§ 1330, 1331. see [d] Passenger locked in.-A railroad company is liable for its agent's knowingly permitting its waiting room at a station to be and to remain locked, against the protest of a prospective passenger in the room, when, by the exercise of ordinary care, such agent could have prevented its being locked, or could have opened it. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 70 Ark. 136, 66 SW 661, 91 AmSR 74. Time for keeping ticket office open see supra § 1113. 90. U. S.-Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 91 rule of the railroad commission may prescribe, before and after the arrival and departure of trains; and the fact that such a statute or rule prescribes a certain time does not relieve the company from the duty of keeping it open for a longer time if the circumstances of a particular case require it.92 Safe and comfortable; heating. It is the duty of the carrier to keep the station or waiting room reasonably safe, comfortable, and decent, and a passenger suffering injury by reason of being un- i Stephens, 218 Fed. 535, 134 CCA 263. Iowa.-Drummey v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 153 Iowa 479, 133 NW 655. Ky. Ward v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 168 Ky. 826, 183 SW 211. Miss.-Williams V. Southern Co., 102 Miss. 617, 59 S 850. R. Tex.-Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Caylor, (Civ. A.) 135 SW 1087; St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Rumfield, 55 Tex. Civ. A. 73, 118 SW 810; International, etc., R. Co. v. Lister, (Civ. A.) 72 SW 107; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Barnett, 19 Tex. Civ. A. 626, 47 SW 1039. Compare St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Wallace, 32 Tex. Civ. A. 312, 74 SW 581 (holding that, if plaintiff remained on the train after being informed that it was the wrong train for him to take, and after a request to get on at the preceding station, defendant was not liable for damages resulting from its failure to have the depot at plaintiff's destination open). A to [a] Statute construed.—(1) statute which requires carriers keep their depots lighted, warm, and open to all passengers who are entitled to go therein for a time not less than one hour before the arrival and after the departure of all passenger trains does not require a station agent to permit a passenger to leave his wife and children in a waiting room from one o'clock A. M. until he can go four and one-half miles into the country and obtain a conveyance, and the carrier is therefore not liable for injuries sustained from exposure of the passenger and family while walking the distance. International, etc., R. Co. v. Pevey, 30 Tex. Civ. A. 460, 70 SW 778. (2) A failure to have or to keep a waiting room open after the departure of a train is not in violation of Ky, St. § 784 as to an alighting passenger who did not reach the waiting room until the train had departed. Ward v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 168 Ky. 826, 183 SW 211. [b] Union station.-A statute requiring rooms in stations to be kept open and heated at least an hour before the arrival of passenger trains does not apply to union stations, in so far as the minimum time may be taken as a guidance to the jury in arriving at what is a reasonable time. Williams v. Southern R. Co., 102 Miss. 617, 59 S 850. 91. Neal v. Southern R. Co., 92 S. C. 197, 75 SE 405. V. Southern 92. Miss.-Williams R. Co., 102 Miss. 617, 59 S 850. S. C.-Neal v. Southern R. Co., 92 S. C. 197, 75 SE 405. Tenn.-Tully v. Yazoo, etc., R. Co., 4 Tenn. Civ. A. 184. Tex.-International, etc., R. Co. v. Doolan, 56 Tex. Civ. A. 503, 120 SW 1118. Wis. Tarczek v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 162 Wis. 438, 156 NW 473. [a] In Texas Rev. St. (1895) art 4521 only requires that the depots be lighted and warmed for a period not less than an hour before the actual arrival and departure of passenger trains, and not for an hour before the time such trains are scheduled to arrive, and a carrier's duty to keep its passenger station open for a longer period to avoid liability to a passenger for injuries from exposure depends solely on the carrier's common-law obligation to exercise due able to sit therein when he desires and it is proper for him so to do may have damages for injuries suffered.93 Thus the carrier may be liable for injuries suffered by a passenger by reason of the waiting room not being properly heated and ventilated,95 particularly where there is a statutory provision requiring it to be heated in cold and inclement weather,96 although such a statute does not relieve the carrier of its common-law duty so to do.97 some jurisdictions, by statute, a Penalty. In care for the safety and comfort of passengers. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Caylor, (Civ. A.) 135 SW 1087. 93. U. S.-Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Stephens. 218 Fed. 535, 134 CCA 263. Ala. Brewer v. Nashville, etc.. R. Co., 184 Ala. 410, 63 S 972; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Campbell, 10 Ala. A. 288, 64 S 540. Ga.-Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, 120 Ga. 380, 47 SE 942. Iowa.-McDonald v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 26 Iowa 124, 95 AmD 114, 29 Iowa 170. Ky-Louisville, etc.. R. Co. V. Daugherty, 108 SW 336, 32 KyL 1392, 15 LRANS 740; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Mounts, 104 SW 748, 31 KyL 1162. Minn. Barnett V. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 123 Minn. 153, 143 NW 263, 48 LRANS 262. S. C.-Pickens v. South Carolina, etc., R. Co., 54 S. C. 498, 32 SE 567. Tex.-Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. McCutcheon, 33 Tex. Civ. A. 557, 77 SW 232; Texas, etc.. R. Co. v. Cornelius, 10 Tex. Civ. A. 125. 30 SW 720: Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Mayes, (A.) 15 SW 43. the [a] At junction point.-A carrier which authorizes the agents of a connecting carrier to sell through tickets over its line is chargeable with notice that persons holding such tickets might be brought to the junction point in ignorance of the withdrawal of its regular train from that point because of high water, and although such high water justifies the withdrawal of the train, it does not justify it in failing to furnish such passengers with facilities for their accommodation and safety in depot at the junction point, at least for a reasonable time after their arrival. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. V. Stephens, 218 Fed. 535, 134 CCA 263. [b] Licensee.Where a person intending to take an early morning train remained at the depot from eleven-thirty P. M. the evening before, defendant carrier was under no obligation to furnish him a warm waiting room before he purchased his ticket the next morning, he being a mere licensee prior thereto. Barnett v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 123 Minn. 153, 143 NW 263, 48 LRANS 262. 94. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Buckner, 89 Ark. 58, 115 SW 923, 20 LRA NS 458; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Hook, 83 Ark. 584, 104 SW 217; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 70 Ark. 136, 66 SW 661, 91 AmSR 74; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Mounts, 104 SW 748, 31 KyL 1162; Williams v. Southern R. Co., 102 Miss. 617, 59 S 850; Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Perry, (Tex. Civ. A.) 147 SW 305; International, etc., R. Co. v. Doolan, 56 Tex. Civ. A. 503, 120 SW 1118; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Groner, 43 Tex. Civ. A. 264, 95 SW 1118 [rev on other grounds 100 Tex. 414, 100 SW 134]; Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. Turner, (Tex. Civ. A.) 93 SW 195. [a] Joint use of station.-Where two carriers maintain and keep a common passenger station, they are jointly bound to keep the same comfortably heated while passengers are reasonably authorized to occupy the same. International, etc.. R. Co. v. Doolan, 56 Tex. Civ. A. 503, 120 SW 1118. See generally supra §§ 1319. 1320. [b] Inviting into office. The cus tom of the agent in charge of a depot to invite passengers, when the weather is disagreeable, to come into the office in the depot, does not relieve the carrier from liability for failure to maintain a proper waiting room. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. McCutcheon, 33 Tex. Civ. A. 557, 77 SW 232. [c] Whether the carrier's duty requires it to heat its waiting room depends on whether it needs to be heated, and whether very cautious and prudent persons would heat it under the same circumstances. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Turner, (Tex. Civ. A.) 93 SW 195. 95. Drummy v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 153 Iowa 479, 133 NW 655. 96. See statutory provisions. [a] In Arkansas, under Kirby Dig. § 6634, a railroad must exercise ordinary care to keep its waiting room comfortably warm, and on failure so to do, as a proximate result of which the passenger suffers injury, it will be liable. Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Cobb, 178 SW 383. [b] In Kentucky under St. (1903) § 784, providing that railroad companies shall keep their waiting rooms comfortably warm in cold weather, and also at common law, railroad companies are liable for any injuries sustained because of a failure to maintain a fire in the waiting room, if it is necessary to make it comfortable. Cincinnati, etc.. R. Co. v. Mounts, 104 SW 748, 31 KyL 1162. [c] In Oklahoma, where a carrier fails to provide heat for a negro waiting room, as required by Const. art 9 26 (Williams Const. § 244), and Sess. L. (1907-1908) p 202 (Rev. L. [1910] §§ 861, 864, 865), it is liable for consequential pain and suffering from cold endured by a negro passenger waiting therein for a train. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Lewis, 39 Okl. 677, 136 P 396. [d] In Texas (1) under Rev. St. (1895) § 4521, requiring depots to be warm for at least an hour before the arrival of passenger trains, and making the company liable for damages suffered by reason of a violation, a company which has neglected to warm the depot or to give a prospective passenger definite information as to when a late train will arrive cannot escape liability on the ground that she should have abandoned her trip and returned to her home. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Lowe, (Civ. A.) 97 SW 1087. (2) But where a railroad, in compliance with the express requirements of Rev. St. (1895) art 4521, opened its station one hour before the departure of a train, it was not liable to a prospective passenger for injuries and suffering resulting to the passenger from exposure before the station was opened. Texas Midland R. Co. v. Griggs, (Civ. A.) 106 SW 411. 97. Drummy v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 153 Iowa 479, 133 NW 655; Tully v. Yazoo, etc., R. Co., 4 Tenn. Civ. A. 184; International, etc., R. Co. v. Doolan, 56 Tex. Civ. A. 503. 120 SW 1118. [a] Illustration.—A passenger who takes passage at a station of a railroad company, destined to a distant point on its line, and who, because of schedule arrangements, occupies a waiting room at an intervening station for several hours, railroad company is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine if it fails to provide suitable station facilities as required by the statute.98 [§ 1347] 6. To Whom Carrier Liable for Unsafe Premises.99 One leaving the station in the usual way and in a reasonable manner is entitled, in regard to the condition of the premises, to the protection of a passenger, until he has left the premises; but, after voluntarily leaving a passenger train at an unusual place, or reaching the street on alighting from a street car, the liability of the carrier as such ceases, and the care which it is required to exercise with reference to the person who has thus ceased to be a passenger is that owed to any other member of the general public.* 3 Leaving train at intermediate station. It has been held that the duty of furnishing reasonably may maintain suit against the company for neglecting its duty to keep its waiting room comfortably heated; and the statutory provision that companies shall open and keep heated their waiting rooms for one hour before the arrival and departure of trains has no application. Tully v. Yazoo, etc., R. Co., 4 Tenn. Civ. A. 184. 98. See statutory provisions. [a] In Kentucky, (1) under St. § 772, every company operating a railroad in that state shall provide a convenient and suitable waiting room and water-closet at all cities and towns, and at such other stations as the railroad commission may require on its line, and shall keep and maintain the same in decent order and repair. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Com., 90 SW 602, 28 KyL 802. (2) And under § 793 any company failing to comply with, or violating, or permitting any of its employees or agents to violate, any of the provisions of § 772, shall, in addition to subjecting itself to any damages that may be caused by such failure or violation, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and be fined for each failure or violation not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars, to be recovered by indictment in the circuit court of any county through which the company in default operates a line of road, or in the Franklin circuit court. [b] Indictment.—(1) While an indictment will be sufficient if it merely charges the carrier with a failure to keep convenient and suitable waiting rooms for passengers, it is not rendered objectionable by the fact that it specifies the particulars in which the waiting room was insufficient. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Com., 90 SW 602, 28 KyL 802. (2) An indictment alleging the carrier's failure to provide a "suitable" watercloset at the passenger depot in a certain town is sufficient. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Com., 103 Ky. 605, 45 SW 880, 46 SW 697, 20 KyL 366. [c] Evidence.-Where the railroad company is required to heat and ventilate its waiting room for only thirty minutes immediately preceding the schedule time of the departure of trains, evidence as to ventilation and heating should be confined to this period. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Com., 90 SW 602. 28 KyL 802. [d] Instructions.-(1) Where the indictment charged that the waiting room was too small, and not sufficiently ventilated nor sufficiently lighted, an instruction authorizing a conviction if the waiting room too small or not sufficiently lighted or ventilated was not objectionable as pointing out in an improper manner the evidence introduced. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Com., 90 SW 602, 603, 28 KyL 802 (where it was said: "It was an effort on the part of the court to prevent the jury from exercising its judgment without limitation as to what was a suitable or convenient waiting room"). (2) But a charge authorizing a conviction if the rail was Persons not passengers. Liability for injuries resulting from unsafe station houses, platforms, and the like is not limited, however, to those who are entitled to be considered passengers. Anyone having business with the carrier, and coming on the premises, does so with an implied invitation, imposing on the carrier the same duty as that of any person conducting a place of business where others are invited to come, that is, the duty of using reasonable care to make the premises safe, and the corresponding liability for injuries resulting from negligence in doing so; and as the usual road neglected to provide a waiting | consent, he may recover the damages room convenient and suitable "for sustained). the accommodation of the passengers and the public traveling on said railroad passenger trains" is misleading, in that it was not restricted by requiring the waiting room to be sufficient merely for the passengers who might travel to and from the station in question. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Com., 90 SW 602, 28 KyL 802. [e] Trial; questions of fact.Whether a carrier sufficiently complies with the statutory requirements is a question of fact depending on the size of the city, town, or station where the carrier's trains stop, and the number of passengers arriving at and departing therefrom. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Com., 90 SW 602, 28 KyL 802. 99. To whom carrier liable for negligence generally see supra § 1311. 1. Ark. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Orr, Mass.-Legge v. New York, etc.. N. H-Hill v. Boston, etc., R. Co., Pa.-Powell v. Philadelphia, etc.. S. C.-Taylor v. Atlantic Coast [a] Delay in leaving premises.- 2. See supra §§ 1050, 1339. 4. Fisher v. Paxson, 182 Pa. 457, Continuance and termination of the relation generally see supra §§ 10471052. 5. State v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 58 Me. 176, 4 AmR 258. But see Abbot v. Oregon R. Co., 46 Or. 549, 80 P 1012, 114 AmSR 885, 1 LRANS 851, 7 AnnCas 961 (holding that a passenger may leave the car or boat on which he is traveling to transact his private business at any intermediate station or landing where a stop is made for any reasonable time to receive or discharge passengers, and, if he is injured without his fault, in consequence of the carrier's negligence on any part of the premises set apart by it for the use of the public, or so used with its Continuance and termination of relation at intermediate station see supra § 1051. 6. Laub v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 118 Mo. A. 488, 94 SW 550; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Redus, 55 Tex. Civ. A. 205, 118 SW 208. See also supra §§ 1051, 1341. 7. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Godfrey, 156 Ala. 202, 47 S 185, 130 AmSR 76: St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Coulson, 8 Kan. A. 4, 54 P 2; Laub v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 118 Mo. A. 488, 94 SW 550. [a] Passageway to hotel.-A carrier is under no obligation to maintain a safe passageway for its passengers to and from any particular hotel, unless under exceptional circumstances, such as eating houses where trains are stopped for passengers to get meals, or hotels in which the carrier is interested, or situated within or adjoining depots or depot grounds. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Godfrey, 156 Ala. 202, 47 S 185, 130 AmSR 76. 8. U. S.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Griffin, 80 Fed. 278, 25 CCA 413. Ga. Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Richmond, 98 Ga. 495, 25 SE 565. Ind. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. V. Jones, 51 Ind. A. 245, 99 NE 503. Iowa.-McNaughton V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 136 Iowa 177, 113 NW 844. La. Harvey v. Louisiana, etc., R. Co., 114 La. 1065, 38 S 859. Me.-Tobon v. Portland, etc., R. Co., 59 Me. 183, 8 AmR 415. Mo.-Chorn V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 168 Mo. A. 518, 153 SW 1060. Nebr.-Fremont, etc., R. Co. V. Hagblad, 72 Nebr. 773, 101 NW 1033, 106 NW 1041, 4 LRANS 254, 9 Ann Cas 1096; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Evans, 52 Nebr. 50, 71 NW 1062. N. J.-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]. N. Y.-Hauk v. New York, etc., R. Co., 34 App. Div. 434, 54 NYS 248. Tex.-Houston Belt, etc., R. Co. v. Winerich, (Civ. A.) 162 SW 903; Smith v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 2 Tex. Unrep. Cas. 329. See generally Negligence [29 Cyc 453]; Railroads [33 Cyc 806]. [a] Seeing after baggage. (1) One on a railroad station platform by invitation of the company with reference to his baggage, and not as a mere licensee, is entitled to have the company exercise ordinary care to keep the platform reasonably safe for his use, and can recover for injury resulting from its negligent failure so to do. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Jones, 51 Ind. A. 245, 99 NE 503. (2) A person purchasing a ticket at a railroad station, and using the usual passage in going to obtain a check for baggage, where injured by dangers existing in such passage which were known or ought to have been known to the carrier, can recover therefor. Exton v. New Jersey Cent. R. Co., 63 N. J. L. 356, 46 A method of conducting the business of carriage of passengers involves the presence of persons on the premises who are not, and do not intend to become, passengers, this care and liability applies to persons who are there for the purpose of accompanying passengers to the trains or other conveyances, or meeting them when they arrive, although it has been held not to apply to one who goes there merely as an acquaintance to say good-by to a departing passenger, and not to attend or assist such passenger.10 It has also been held that this duty does not extend to those at the station at an unusual hour for the purpose of bidding farewell to a person about to leave on a freight train in charge of 1099, 56 LRA 508 [aff 62 N. J. L. 7, 42 A 486, 56 LRA 508]. [b] A person having a permit to ride in the caboose of a freight train cannot recover for injuries sustained by him while on his way to board the caboose, without proof of negligence on the part of the company in the construction or maintenance of its station or yards. which negligence is the proximate cause of the injury. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Mann, 78 Nebr. 541, 111 NW 379. : [c] A shipper of live stock who accompanies it, and is advised that it will be necessary to pass over railroad yards to board the caboose at the distant point at which it is placed, is not a trespasser in going from the station to board the caboose, and it is the duty of the carrier to use reasonable care to make the premises reasonably safe. Chorn v. Missouri, etc.. R. Co., 168 Mo. A. 518, 153 SW 1060. [d] One visiting a railroad depot to inquire as to a train on which he desires to become a passenger is an invitee, and the carrier owes him the duty of exercising reasonable care to keep its premises in such condition that he will not, while in the exercise of ordinary care, suffer injury in seeking an exit. Houston Belt, etc., R. Co. v. Winerich, (Tex. Civ. A.) 162 SW 903. Care as to persons not passengers boarding or alighting see infra 8 1362. 9. U. S.-Delaware, etc., R. Co. v. Price, 221 Fed. 848, 137 CCA 406 [certiorari den 238 U. S. 636, 35 SCt 939, 59 L. ed. 1500]. Ala.-Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson, 77 Ala. 448, 54 AmR 72. Ark.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Grimsley, 90 Ark. 64, 117 SW 1064. Colo.-Union Depot, etc., Co. V. Londoner, 50 Colo. 22, 114 P 316, 33 LRANS 433; Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Spencer, 27 Colo. 313, 61 P 606, 51 LRA 121. Ga.-Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Owens, 123 Ga. 393, 51 SE 404; Southern R. Co. v. Myrick, 12 Ga. A. 241, 77 SE 3: Southern R. Co. v. Parham, 10 Ga. A. 531, 73 SE 763. V. Ind. New York, etc., R. Co. V. Mushrush, 11 Ind. A. 192, 37 NE 954. Ky.-Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. Meyer, 119 SW 183; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Giboney. 124 Ky. 806, 100 SW 216, 30 KyL 1005. La-Landphere v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 132 La. 351, 61 S 399. Me.-Hutchins V. Penobscot Bay, etc., Steamboat Co., 110 Me. 369, 373, 86 A 250, AnnCas1914D 132 and note [cit Cyc]. Mich. McKone v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 51 Mich. 601, 17 NW 74, 47 AmR 596. Mo.-Stark v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 179 Mo. A. 225, 166 SW 850; Winscott v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 151 Mo. A. 378, 131 SW 749. N. Y.-Blaisdell v. Long Island R. Co., 152 App. Div. 218, 136 NYS 768 [rev 131 NYS 14]. Okl.-Atchison, etc., R. Co. V. Cogswell. 23 Okl. 181, 99 P 923, 20 LRANS 837 and note. S. C.-Smoak v. Savannah, etc., R. [§ 1348] G. Care Required and Liability as to Passengers Boarding or Alighting from Vehicle— 1. In General.12 The carrier is bound to exercise care in securing the safety of the passenger while boarding and alighting from its cars or other conveyances, 13 and the degree of care required in the discharge of this duty is the highest care, or the care which a very prudent person would use under the circumstances, that is, that high degree of care which is required with reference to the transportation of passengers;15 and where a carrier misleads a passenger with reference to the time, the Co., 65 S. C. 299, 43 SE 662; Izlar v. Manchester, etc., R. Co., 57 S. C. 332. 35 SE 583. Tenn.-Cherokee Packet Co. v. Hilson, 95 Tenn. 1, 31 SW 737. Tex.-Houston, etc., R. Co. V. Phillio, 96 Tex. 18, 69 SW 994, 97 AmSR 868, 59 LRA 392 [rev_(Civ. A.) 67 SW 915]; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Best, 66 Tex. 116, 18 SW 224; Hamilton v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 64 Tex. 251, 53 AmR 756; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Williams, 21 Tex. Civ. A. 469, 51 SW 653; Smith v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 2 Tex. Unrep. Cas. 329. Va.-Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. V. Mathews, 114 Va. 173, 76 SE 288; Chesapeake, etc.. R. Co. v. Paris, 107 Va. 408, 59 SE 398. Wis.-Dowd v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 84 Wis. 105, 54 NW 24, 36 AmSR 917. 20 LRA 527 and note. Status of persons attending passengers generally see supra § 1061. 10. Galveston, etc., R. Co. Matzdorf, 102 Tex. 42, 112 SW 1036, 132 AmSR 849, 20 LRANS 833 and note [rev (Civ. A.) 107 SW 8821. 11. Dowd v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 84 Wis. 105, 54 NW 24, 36 AmSR 917, 20 LRA 527. 12. Condition and use of premises see supra §§ 1337-1347. Proximate cause of injury generally see infra § 1392. 13. Younglove v. Pullman Co., 207 Fed. 797; Smithers v. Wilmington City R. Co., 22 Del. 422, 67 A 167; Appleby v. South Carolina, etc., R. Co., 60 S. C. 48, 38 SE 237. See also infra §§ 1349-1370. 14. U. S.-New York, etc., R. Co. v. Lincoln, 223 Fed. 896, 139 CCA 334. Ark. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Green, 85 Ark. 117, 119. 107 SW 168, 14 LRANS 1148 [quot Cycl Ga-Central R. Co. v. Thompson, 76 Ga. 770. Ill.-Pennsylvania Co. v. McCaffrey, 173 Ill. 169, 50 NE 713; Redin v. Alton, etc., Tract. Co., 173 Ill. A. 491; Sorenson v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 155 Ill. A. 606; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Noble, 132 Ill. A. 400; Harvey v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 116 Ill. A. 507 [aff 221 Ill. 242, 77 NE 569]; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Reese, 93 Ill. A. 657. V. Iowa.-Dieckmann v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 145 Iowa 250, 121 NW 676, 139 AmSR 420, 31 LRANS 338; Johnston v. Cedar Rapids, etc., 141 Iowa 114. 119 NW 286; Dieckmann Chicago, etc., R. Co., 105 NW 526. Ky. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Dallas, 150 Ky. 442, 150 SW 536; Illinois, etc., R. Co. v. Gunterman, 135 Ky. 438, 122 SW 514; Lutz v.. Louisville R. Co., 48 SW 1080, 20 KyL 1163; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 13 KyL 974. La.-Estopinal v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 6 La. A. (Orleans) 35. Mass.-Moody v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 189 Mass. 277, 75 NE 631; Nichols v. Lynn, etc., R. Co., 168 Mass. 528, 14 Mo.-Deskins v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 151 Mo. A. 432, 132 SW 45; Craig v. Wabash R. Co., 142 Mo. A. 314, 126 SW 771; Van Cleve v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 137 Mo. A. 332, 118 SW 116; Moorman v. Atchison, etc.. R. Co., 105 Mo. A. 711, 78 SW 1089. N. C.-Anderson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 161 N. C. 462, 77 SE 402. Tenn.-Southern R. Co. v. Mitchell, 98 Tenn. 27, 40 SW 72. Tex.-Missouri Pac. R. Co. V. Wortham, 73 Tex. 25, 10 SW 741. 3 LRA 368; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Williams, (Civ. A.) 136 SW 527; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Dunbar, 57 Tex. Civ. A. 411, 122 SW 574: Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Beezley, 56 Tex. Civ. A. 245, 120 SW 1136; Weatherford, etc., R. Co. v. White, 55 Tex. Civ. A. 32, 118 SW 799; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Tittle, (Civ. A.) 115 SW 640; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Wolf, 40 Tex. Civ. A. 381, 89 SW 778; Texas Midland R. Co. V. Brown, (Civ. A.) 58 SW 44; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Lee, 21 Tex. Civ. A. 174, 51 SW 351, 57 SW 573; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Dotson, 15 Tex. Civ. A. 73, 38 SW 642; Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Kennedy, 12 Tex. Civ. A. 654, 35 SW 335. [a] Reasonable care, under the circumstances is required of a carrier in setting down passengers at stations. Serviss v. Ann Arbor R. Co.. 169 Mich. 564, 135 NW 343; Southern R. Co. v. Mitchell, 98 Tenn. 27, 40 SW 72. [b] Part of train nearest station. -A carrier may determine the part of the train to be nearest the station at stops, having due regard for lic, providing reasonably safe walk the convenience of the traveling pubways are provided from the place of, egress to the station. Anderson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 161 N. C. 462, 77 SE 402. [c] Reboarding train.-A carrier owes to a passenger who alighted in reliance on misinformation by a trainman as to the name of the station the same duty as to other passengers about to board the train. Foley v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 179 Mich. 586, 146 NW 186. 15. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Bigger, 239 U. S. 330, 36 SCt 127, 60 L. ed. 310 Fed. [aff 218 990, 133 CCA 673]; Central of Georgia R. Co. V. Brown, 141 Ga. 553, 81 SE 857; Reardon v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 215 Mo. 105, 114 SW 961; Craig v. Wabash R. Co., 142 Mo. A. 314, 126 SW 771; McKinstry v. St. Louis Transit Co., 108 Mo. A. 12. 82 SW 1108; San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Turney, 33 See Tex. Civ. A. 626, 78 SW 256. also supra §§ 1295-1300. [a] Safety of place.-In determining whether a carrier has used extraordinary diligence in protecting the safety of an alighting passenger, the safety of the place of alighting under the circumstances may be considered Central of with the other facts. Georgia R. Co. V. Brown, 141 Ga. Miss.-Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 553, 81 SE 857. See also supra §§ 103 Miss. 150, 60 S 73. 1340-1346. |