place, and the safety of boarding or alighting, it is liable for the injuries sustained,16 but the carrier is not an insurer of the passenger's safety in this regard," and if the carrier, through its agents and employees, uses proper care for the safety and protection of a boarding'or an alighting passenger it is not liable for injuries that he may sustain while getting on or leaving the car, particularly where he does so by an unusual mode of ingress or egress;] nor is it liable for injuries received by him after it has performed its duty, and he has safely left the car. 18 .19 [§ 1349] 2. Duty to Warn as to Danger.21 In 16. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Mullen, 120 Ill. A. 88 [aff 217 Ill. 203, 75 NE 474, 2 LRANS 115 and note, 3 AnnCas 1015]; Flint, etc., R. Co. v. Stark, 38 Mich. 714; Lent V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 120 N. Y. 467, 24 NE 653 [aff 54 N. Y. Super. 317]; Texas Pac. R. Co. v. Davidson. 68 Tex. 370, 4 SW 636; Texas Midland R. Co. v. Brown, (Tex. Civ. A.) 58 SW 44. [a] Premature starting of train. -If one entitled to the rights of a passenger on a railroad train, without being guilty of contributory negligence, is injured in the effort to get on the train, which has started from a stopping place before the time designated to him by the conductor in charge, the company is liable in damages for the injury. Texas Pac. R. Co. v. Davidson, 68 Tex. 370, 4 SW 636. [b] Premature call "all aboard.”— Where a passenger who could not get a seat was told that another car would be attached, and on its being run down against the train and the conductor calling "All aboard" he attempted to pass from one car to such additional car, and was injured by reason of the car not being well coupled, the was company liable. Lent v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co. 120 N. Y. 467, 24 NE 653 [aff 54 N. Y. Super. 318]. [c] Passengers are not required to wait for express invitations before entering a car. Texas Midland R. Co., 141 Iowa 114, 119 NW 286; SW 44. 17. Johnston v. Cedar Rapids, etc., R. Co., 141 Iowa 114, 119 NW 286; Craig v. Wabash R. Co., 142 Mo. A. 314, 126 SW 771; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Tittle, (Tex. Civ. A.) 115 SW 640. Carrier not insurer see generally supra § 1302. 18. U. S.-Skinner V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 39 Fed. 188. Cal.-Dougherty V. Union Co., 23 Cal. A. 17, 136 P 722. Tract. Ky.-Bruff v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 121 SW 475, 24 LRANS 740; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Boles, 73 SW 1034, 24 KyL 2282. Mass.-Gagnon V. Boston El. R. Co., 205 Mass. 483, 91 NE 875; Hines v. Boston El. R. Co., 198 Mass. 346, 84 NE 475. N. Y.-MacKenzie v. Union R. Co., 82 App. Div. 124, 81 NYS 748 [aff 178 N. Y. 638 mem, 71 NE 1134 mem]. Pa.-Markle v. Pittsburgh R. Cos., 238 Pa. 353, 86 A 204; Howell v. Union Tract. Co., 202 Pa. 338, 51 A 885. Tex.-Pillow v. Texarkana, etc., R. Co., 55 Tex. Civ. A. 597, 119 SW 128. [a] Passengers assume the risk of accidental injuries in getting on or off cars; therefore, a passenger cannot recover for an injury caused by an employee of the company slipping from the platform rail on which he was standing, and falling on him while ascending the steps for the purpose of entering the car, where it appears that the falling was purely accidental. Skinner v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 39 Fed. 188. car [b] Failing to keep doors locked until car stops.-Where a two train moved slowly along the platform of a subway station, and was about a car length from the place general there is no duty to instruct or warn passengers of the proper or safe mode of entering or leaving cars, it being the duty of the passenger to comply with the usual reasonable and known regulations of the carrier with reference to safe entrance and exit.22 Thus a street car company need not warn an alighting passenger of the danger of colliding with or being run over by other vehicles in the street,23 or of the ordinary condition of the street. However, it is the carrier's duty to warn a boarding or an alighting passenger of dangers of which it knows or ought to know, and of which the passenger is ignorant," especially at a place other where it was to stop, when a passen- [c] Running along track.-Where 19. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Canfield, 118 Ill. A. 353; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Wade, 18 Ind. A. 346, 48 NE 12; Ratteree v. Galveston, etc., R. Co., 36 Tex. Civ. A. 197, 81 SW 566. [a] A railroad company is entitled to designate certain doors and steps by which its passengers shall leave its train and reserve others for the performance of necessary work. Ratteree v. Galveston, etc., R. Co., 36 Tex. Civ. A. 197, 81 SW 566 (holding also that, where the vestibule on the end of a coach at which plaintiff claimed he was hurt in seeking egress from the car was not opened on the side next to the station, and had been opened on the other side only for the purpose of placing a hose to convey water into the car, and plaintiff was injured by the movement of the hose and the car while attempting to go out of such door, the railroad company was not guilty of negligence justifying a recovery). [b] It is not negligence to have the vestibules of cars locked at a station so far as such cars are supposed to contain passengers not desiring to alight at the station, a reasonable exit being provided from other cars. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Wade, 18 Ind. A. 346, 48 NE 12. 20. Stewart v. East St. Louis R. Co.. 173 III. A. 477; Sama v. San Juan Light, etc., Co., 4 Porto Rico Fed. 13. [a] Where a passenger alights 21. Duty to warn of danger: Of danger in boarding or alighting Warning of movement of train see 22. D. C.-Holohan V. Washington, etc.. R. Co., 19 D. C. 316. Ga. Central R. Co. v. Thompson, Ind.-Pere Marquette R. Co. V. Kan.-Warren v. Southern Kansas R. Co., 37 Kan. 408, 15 P 601. Ky. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Proctor, 122 Ky. 92, 89 SW 714, 28 KyL 598. Mass.-Goddard v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 179 Mass. 52, 60 NE 486. Miss. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Massey, 97 Miss. 794, 53 S 385. N. Y.-Lafflin v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 106 N. Y. 136, 12 NE 599, 60 AmR 433; Kohm V. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 104 App. Div. 237, 93 NYS 671, 16 NYAnnCas 315; MacKenzie v. Union R. Co., 82 App. Div. 124, 81 NYS 748 [aff 178 N. Y. 638 mem, 71 NE 1134 mem]. S. C.-Du Bose v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 81 S. C. 271, 62 SE 255. Wis.-Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Curtis. 23 Wis. 152, 99 AmD 141. [a] Special supervision of adult not required.-A carrier is under no obligation to exercise special supervision and guidance over a passenger, a man of mature years in good health, having had considerable experience in traveling, who does not disclose the fact that he is ignorant of the situation of the tracks or station grounds, or ask for any information or guidance in going from the station to the train on which he is to be transported and by which he is injured, although the night is dark and cloudy and the station grounds are new and uncompleted. Pere Marquette R. Co. v. Strange, 171 Ind. 160, 84 NE 819, 85 NE 1026, 20 LRANS 1041. [b] Duty to direct movements of passenger.-(1) A common carrier engaged in a great city in the transportation of a large number of passengers between stations, from which it controls their admission to its trains, is bound to exercise care to so direct the movements and disposition of those whom it undertakes to transport as to preserve their safety. Kohm v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 104 App. Div. 237, 93 NYS 671, 16 NY AnnCas 315. (2) In directing a passenger which train to take to reach her destination, the carrier is required to give the passenger the highest degree of care and attention. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. V. Smith, 103 Miss. 150, 60 S 73. Information to passengers see generally supra §§ 1229-1231. 23. Oddy v. West End St. R. Co., 178 Mass, 341, 59 NE 1026, 86 AmSR 482. Street car cases generally see infra §§ 1363-1369. 24. Thompson v. Gardner, etc., R. Co., 193 Mass. 133, 78 NE 854, 118 AmSR 459. [a] Illustration.-Where a passenger on a street car alighted at night from the "sidewalk side" of a car, and was injured by stepping into a gutter between the car track and the sidewalk, which gutter was similar to those ordinarily maintained in streets in country towns, the conductor of the car was entitled to assume that plaintiff was familiar with the existence of the gutter, and was therefore not guilty of negligence in failing to warn her of its existence. Thompson v. Gardner, etc., R. Co., 193 Mass. 133, 78 NE 854. 118 AmSR 459. 25. Iowa.-Dieckmann v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 145 Iowa 250, 121 NW 676, 139 AmSR 420, 31 LRANS 338; than a regular stopping place.26 Thus, where a street car company stops its car at a place where there are obstructions or defects in the street of which it knows or should know, but of which an alighting passenger is ignorant, it is its duty to warn him thereof.27 As to particular exit. Where a carrier desires passengers to leave a car by a particular door or exit, it should notify them of that fact and warn them against leaving by another door or exit.28 Sufficiency of warning. Where a warning to passengers is necessary, a general warning, such as Dieckmann v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 105 NW 526. Mo.-Wilburn v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 36 Mo. A. 203. N. Y.-Catterson V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 132 App. Div. 399, 116 NYS 760; Woolsey v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 123 App. Div. 631, 108 NYS 16; Truesdell v. Erie R. Co., 114 App. Div. 34, 99 NYS 694. N. C.-Penny v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 153 N. C. 296, 69 SE 238, 32 LRANS 1209. Tex.-East Line, etc., R. Co. V. Rushing, 69 Tex. 306, 6 SW 834. Eng. Praeger v. Bristol, etc., R. Co., 24 L. T. Rep. N. S. 105. [a] Open space between platform and car. (1) Where an open space between the platform and the car is of a dangerous character, it is the duty of the carrier to use reasonable care to warn passengers thereof. Woolsey v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 123 App. Div. 631, 108 NYS 16 (holding that, where owing to the varying widths of a carrier's cars the space between the platform of a car and the station platform varies, it is the duty of the company to use reasonable care to prevent accident by giving warning to one moving in the midst of a crowd of passengers, seeking to board one of the narrower cars, of the space between the platform of the car and the station); Coogan v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 50 Misc. 562, 99 NYS 382; Praeger v. Bristol, etc., R. Co., 24 L. T. Rep. N. S. 105 (holding that a company is guilty of negligence in inviting a passenger to step from a carriage to a dimly lighted platform without cautioning him warning him of a space between the platform and the carriage, caused "by a curve of the platform," into which space the passenger falls and is injured). (2) Unless the passenger knows of such opening. Woolsey v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 123 App. Div. 631, 108 NYS 16. and [b] Danger of assaults from third persons.-A carrier owes to a passenger the duty of warning him, when in the act of alighting, of the dangers arising from persons armed with pistols engaging in an altercation immediately after having left the train at a station. Penny v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 153 N. C. 296. 69 SE 238, 32 LRANS 1209; Penny v. Atlantic Coast-Line R. Co., 133 N. C. 221, 45 SE 563, 63 LRA 497. [c] Evidence that the conductor had left the train before all the passengers had alighted, and that the brakeman making the coupling gave no warning, is sufficient to justify the submission of the question of gross negligence to the jury. East Line, etc., R. Co. v. Rushing, 69 Tex. 306, 6 SW 834. [d] Headlight.-Where passengers are required, in order to board west bound trains, to cross two tracks to another platform. the tracks as they approach the depot being straight for several miles, the company is bound to know that a headlight will not accurately inform an ordinary observer of the distance of an approaching train from the depot. Dieckmann v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 145 Iowa 250, 121 will be likely to reach all the passengers on their way in or out, is sufficient.29 Where an opening in a train at a station has been made for the passage of persons, the duty to give warning before closing the space is not satisfied by merely ringing the engine bell or sounding the whistle.30 [§ 1350] 3. Boarding or Alighting from Moving Train or Car.31 As a general rule a carrier's employees have a right to assume that a passenger will not attempt to board or alight from a moving train or car, 32 and hence are not negligent in fail NW 676, 139 AmSR 420, 31 LRANS 338; Dieckmann v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., (Iowa) 105 NW 526. 26. Ala.-Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Seaborn, 168 Ala. 658, 53 S 241. Mass.-Wakeley v. Boston El. R. Co., 217 Mass. 488, 105 NE 436; Joslyn v. Milford, etc., R. Co., 184 Mass. 65, 67 NE 866. Mich.-Mensing v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 117 Mich. 606, 76 NW 98. N. Y.-Lewis V. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 145 N. Y. 508, 40 NE 248. Pa-Leedom v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 52 Pa. Super. 598, 602. Va.-Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Harris, 103 Va. 635, 49 SE 997; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 103 Va. 326, 49 SE 487. [a] Illustrations.—(1) Where a carrier ran its car beyond the station platform, and stopped at a place which was safe for passengers to alight in the daytime, but which had been rendered unsafe by a sudden snowstorm and by reason of its being dark, the carrier was negligent in inviting a passenger to alight at such place without assistance and without informing him of the danger. Mensing v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 117 Mich. 606, 76 NW 98. (2) Where passengers on a railroad are invited expressly or impliedly to get off at a place other than that at which they usually alight, and there is any special danger attending their approach to the station, it is the duty of the railroad company to warn them of such danger, and to aid them in reaching the station in safety; and this is especially true in the nighttime. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. V. Smith, 103 Va. 326, 49 SE 487. (3) Where the conductor of a train allows a passenger to get off at a place which is not a usual stopping place, he will be negligent if he fails to inform the passenger of danger from a train on another track. Lewis v. Delaware, etc., Canal Co., 145 N. Y. 508, 40 NE 248. Care at places other than regular stopping places generally see infra §§ 1360, 1361. 27. Ind.-Ft. Wayne Tract. Co. v. Morvilius, 31 Ind. A. 464, 68 NE 304. Ky. Sweet v. Louisville R. Co., 113 Ky. 15, 67 SW 15, 23 KyL 2279. Mo. Macdonald v. St. Louis Transit Co., 108 Mo. A. 374, 83 SW 1001. N. H-Bass v. Concord St. R. Co., 70 N. H. 170, 46 A 1056. V. N. Y.-Wolf v. Third Ave. R. Co. 67 App. Div. 605, 74 NYS 336; Flack Nassau Electric R. Co., 41 App. Div. 399, 58 NYS 839; Schlessinger v. Manhattan R. Co., 49 Misc. 504, 98 NYS 840. Pa. Sowash v. Consolidated Tract. Co., 188 Pa. 618, 41 A 743. Va.-Richmond City R. Co. v. Scott, 86 Va. 902, 11 SE 404. Street car cases generally see infra §§ 1363-1369. 28. Ill-Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Schmelling, 99 Ill. A. 577 [aff 197 Ill. 619, 64 NE 714]. Iowa. McDonald v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 88 Iowa 345, 55 NW 102. Mo.-Rearden v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 215 Mo. 105, 114 SW 961. N. C.-Kearney v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 158 N. C. 521, 74 SE 593. Tex.-Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Long, 81 Tex. 253, 16 SW 1016, 26 AmSR 811. [a] Exits on both sides.-Where alighting passengers can leave a train on either side and one side is more dangerous than the other, the carrier must have some employee present to advise the passengers. Kearney v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 158 N. C. 521, 74 SE 593. [b] Front or rear platform.-(1) Where it is dangerous for a passenger to alight from the front platform of a coach, and the conductor is at that platform, his failure to give warning thereof to an alighting passenger is negligence, and the company is negligent if none of its employees are at the platform to warn passengers of danger in alighting there, or in not directing them to get off at the rear platform. Rearden v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 215 Mo. 105, 114 SW 961. (2) It is negligence not to warn passengers that it is unsafe to alight from the rear platform of a car, although there may be no danger in alighting from the front platform. McDonald V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 88 Iowa 345, 55 NW 102. 29. Langin V. New York, etc., Bridge, 10 App. Div. 529, 42 NYS 353; Wertheimer V. Interborough Kapid Transit Co., 52 Misc. 540, 102 NYS 706; Coogan V. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 50 Misc. 562, 99 NYS 382. [a] Thus, (1) where a carrier maintains a subway station platform with a space nine inches wide between the edge of the platform and the subway cars, it is bound to give such timely warning to passengers about to board the cars as ought to be and naturally would be heard and understood by the passengers who are giving ordinary attention to their surroundings, although it is not bound to give a specific caution to a particular passenger. Coogan v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 50 Misc. 562, 99 NYS 382. (2) The duty of a subway company to inform persons boarding its trains of the existence of a space between the car platform and the platform of the station was fulfilled, and the company was guilty of no negligence, where the guard on the train uttered the words "Watch the step!" in such a manner that a person paying ordinary attention to what was going on about him would naturally hear the warning. Wertheimer v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 52 Misc. 540, 102 NYS 706. 30. Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Smith, 135 Ky. 462, 122 SW 806. 31. Contributory negligence of passenger see infra §§ 1495, 15011506. 32. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Tankersley, 54 Ark. 25, 14 SW 1099; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Massey, 97 Miss. 794, 53 S 385; Miller v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 158 App. Div. 808, 144 NYS 208. [a] The fact that the train is not brought to a stop will not justify a hazardous attempt to alight so as to render the carrier liable for injury resulting therefrom. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Tankersley, 54 Ark. 25, 14 SW 1099. 34 ing to warn him against doing so,33 or in failing to use other means to restrain him from doing so,* especially where it does not know, or have reason to know, of his peril or intention to board or alight from the moving train or car, 35 and where the passenger attempts to get off or on at a place other than a regular stopping place. But it is otherwise where the carrier's employees know, or have reason to know, of the passenger's intention and that he is ignorant of his peril in attempting to board or alight," and this latter rule has 33. D. C.-Hutchinson v. Capital | from illness, but there is nothing to Tract. Co., 36 App. 251. Ky.-Louisville R. Co. v. Furnas, 155 Ky. 470, 159 SW 994. La.- -Morris v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 127 La. 445, 53 S 698, 31 LRANS 629. Mass.-Mabry v. Boston El. R. Co., 214 Mass. 463, 102 NE 309. Miss.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Massey, 97 Miss. 794, 53 S 385. Or.-Armstrong v. Portland R. Co., 52 Or. 437, 97 P 715. Wash.-Sumner V. Grays Harbor R., etc., Co., 89 Wash. 55, 154 P 126. [a] Struck by trailer.-Where a passenger alights from a slowly moving motor car to which a trailer is attached, as the motor is rounding a curve, and before the trailer has struck the curve, and, going only a step from the track, is struck by the trailer and injured, the conductor is not negligent in failing to warn him. Louisville R. Co. v. Furnas, 155 Ky. 470, 159 SW 994. a [b] Standing on step. That flagman fails to notify a passenger standing on the step that the train is moving, and that it is dangerous to attempt to alight while the train is in motion will not charge the company with negligence; the fact that the passenger is on the step not warning the flagman that he will alight while the train is in motion. Morris v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 127 La. 445, 53 S 698, 31 LRANS 629. 34. U. S.-Lennon V. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 192 Fed. 111, 112 CCA 451. Cal.-Finkeldey v. Omnibus Cable Co., 114 Cal. 28, 45 P 996. Conn.- Moffitt v. Connecticut Co., 86 Conn. 527, 86 A 16. Ga.-Simmons v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 120 Ga. 225, 47 SE 570, 1 Ann Cas 777. Ky.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Hanberry, 66 SW 417, 23 KyL 1867. La.-Morris v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 127 La. 445, 53 S 698, 31 LRANS 629. Mass.-Mabry v. Boston El. R. Co., 214 Mass. 463, 102 NE 309; Gagnon v. Boston El. R. Co., 205 Mass. 483, 91 NE 875. Mo.-Leu v. St. Louis Transit Co., 106 Mo. A. 329, 80 SW 273. R. Tex.-St. Louis Southwestern Co. v. Adams, (Civ. A.) 163 SW 1029; International, etc., R. Co. v. Rhoades, 21 Tex. Civ. A. 459, 51 SW 517. [a] The failure of the employees of a railroad to control passengers who will jump from a moving train is not a failure of the duty of the trainmen. Morris V. Illinois Cent. K. Co.. 127 La. 445, 53 S 698, 31 LRANS 629. [b] Alighting from freight train. -Where a carrier's rule, in continuous force for many years, forbids passengers from riding on freight trains, and can only be suspended by the company's superior officers, a passenger riding on a freight train by contract with the brakeman cannot recover for injuries sustained in alighting while the train is in motion. Goodney v. International, etc., R. Co., 51 Tex. Civ. A. 596, 113 SW 171. See also Railroads [33 Cyc 817, 849]. [c] Contributory negligence absent. The fact that, in stepping from a moving train, a passenger is not guilty of negligence does not entitle him to a verdict, unless it also appears that the carrier is at the time guilty of negligence which is the proximate cause of his injury. Simmons V. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 120 Ga. 225, 47 SE 570, 1 Ann Cas. 777. See also infra § 1392. [d] Insane passenger. Where a carrier's servants know that a passenger has become mentally deranged indicate that she contemplates leaving the train while in motion, the carrier is not negligent in failing to provide a guard for her, or forcibly to restrain her to prevent such act. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Adams, (Tex. Civ. A.) 163 SW 1029. [e] Subway car. Where a passenger attempts to board a moving subway car before it has stopped, and losing his hold falls and is injured, every element of danger being as plain to him as to the carrier's employee, the employee is not negligent in failing to thwart the passenger's effort to board the car, nor in violating a rule requiring conductors at stations to stand on the rear step of a car platform, with the left hand grasping the body rail and the right hand the dasher rail, facing outward toward the station platform, and to ride thus until the car arrives at its assigned berth, the object being to keep any person from boarding the car while in motion. Gegnon v. Boston El. R. Co., 205 Mass. 483, 91 NE 875. [f] Slackening speed as negligence. It is not negligence, as a matter of law, for the driver of a street car merely to slacken its speed for one to get on, especially where the person, without indicating any desire that it be stopped, attempts to board it while it is in motion. Finkeldey v. Omnibus Cable Co., 114 Cal. 28, 45 P 996. 35. Ill.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 44 Ill. A. 56. Miss. Collins v. Southern R. Co.. 89 Miss. 375, 42 S 167. N. Y.-Newmark V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 127 App. Div. 58, 111 NYS 379; Law v. New York City R. Co., 96 NYS 1019. Oh-Ashtabula Rapid Transit Co. v. Holmes, 67 Oh. St. 153, 65 NE 877. Or.-Armstrong v. Portland R. Co., 52 Or. 437, 97 P 715. Tex.-Harris v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 36 Tex. Civ. A. 94, 80 SW 1023; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Cleveland, (Civ. A.) 61 SW 951. [a] Knowledge of perilous position. If an engineer in charge of a passenger train knows that a passenger is in a dangerous position, and is actually trying to board a train while in motion, the engineer is bound to use care incident to such special knowledge; but, in the absence of such knowledge, it is his duty to operate the train in a manner consistent with the safety of those already on board. Newmark v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 127 App. Div. 58, 111 NYS 379. [b] Failure of a railroad company to stop its train at a crossing, in accordance with a custom or police regulation, will not render the company liable for injuries to a passenger by reason of his attempting to alight at such crossing, where the company has no notice of his attempt. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 44 Ill. A. 56; Collins v. Southern R. Co., 89 Miss. 375, 42 S 167. [c] Where a street car merely slackens its speed to permit a passenger to get on, the conductor, in the absence of notice of a passenger's intent to alight, is not bound to know that any passenger will attempt to get off while the car is in motion. Ashtabula Rapid Transit Co. v. Holmes, 67 Oh. St. 153, 65 NE 877. 36. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Cleveland, (Tex. Civ. A.) 61 SW 951. 37. D. C.-Hutchinson v. Capital Tract. Co., 36 App. 251. Ind.-Indiana Union Tract. Co. v. Swafford, 179 Ind. 279, 100 NE 840. Ky.-Kentucky Highlands R. Co. v. Creal, 166 Ky. 469, 179 SW 417, LRA 1916B 830; Paducah Tract. Co. V. Tolar, 162 Ky. 50, 171 SW 1009; Blue Grass Tract. Co. v. Skillman, 102 SW 809, 31 KyL 480. Mass.-McDonough v. Metropolitan R. Co., 137 Mass. 210. Mo.-Foland v. Southwest Missouri Electric R. Co., 119 Mo. A. 284, 95 SW 958. Nebr.-Kruger v. Omaha, etc., St. R. Co., 80 Nebr. 490, 114 NW 571, 127 AmSR 786, 17 LRANS 101 and note. [a] Illustrations.-(1) Where on a dark night the conductor of an electric car twice announced a station, and then opened the door and went on to the platform, and a passenger, ignorant, although exercising ordinary care, of the fact that the car was still moving, the current having been turned off at the top of a grade and the movement of the car being so smooth that a person would not notice it, followed him on to the platform, passed by him down the steps, and was injured in attempting to alight, the carrier is liable, the conductor having failed to warn her, although he knew her danger, or by the exercise of ordinary care should have known of it, and he being bound to know, under the circumstances, that she followed him for the purpose of alighting. Blue Grass Tract. Co. v. Skillman, 102 SW 809, 31 KyL 480. (2) Where a girl under fourteen years of age, unaccustomed to riding on street cars, becomes frightened by the negligence of defendant's employees in carrying her past her known destination, and the conductor knows or should have known of such passenger's condition, and that she is about to leave a moving car, he should exercise the highest degree of care possible to prevent such passenger from alighting, and if he fails to exercise the due care required of him, and the passenger receives injuries while alighting from the moving car, defendant carrier is liable therefor. Kruger v. Omaha, etc., St. R. Co., 80 Nebr. 490, 114 NW 571, 127 AmSR 786, 17 LRANS 101. [b] Degree of care. As to one attempting to board a moving train, a carrier owes no duty except that which it owes to a trespasser, and on discovery of his peril must exercise ordinary care to avoid injury to him. Kentucky Highlands R. Co. v. Creal, 166 Ky. 469, 179 SW 417, LRA 1916B 830 and note; Jonas v. South Covington, etc., St. R. Co., 162 Ky. 171, 172 SW 131, AnnCas1916E 965. [c] A failure to stop when a person is attempting to board or alight, to the knowledge of the motorman or conductor, is negligence. McDonough v. Metropolitan R. Co., 137 Mass. 210. [d] Rule applied to female passenger-"While the conductor, in the exercise of ordinary care, might not be required to take notice of the action of a passenger able to take care of himself in alighting from a car running at a slow rate of speed, it is perfectly obvious that when a conductor sees a middle-aged woman in the act of getting off a car running at ten or fifteen miles an hour, he cannot help but know that it is a most unusual and uncommon thing to do, as well as extremely dangerous, and under conditions like this the duty the conductor is under to protect the passengers requires that he shall make reasonable effort to prevent the passenger from getting off, if he knows his purpose. A conductor cannot shut his eyes and say he did not see or know what was going on when his duty in looking after the safety of his passengers him to see and know." requires Paducah 38 39 been in effect prescribed by statute or ordinance.3 The carrier is not liable, even when its employees have knowledge of the injured person's intent, if they use proper care to prevent him from boarding or alighting while the train or car is in motion,3 or to assist him to escape from a dangerous position in which he has placed himself.40 But so to manage a train or car as to create an appearance of imminent danger of a collision, thereby inducing passengers to jump from the train or car, may constitute negligence for which the carrier is liable.11 Under direction or invitation. The carrier is liable for the resulting injuries where a passenger Tract. Co. v. Tolar, 162 Ky. 50, 54, 171 SW 1009. 38. See statutory provisions. And see Johnson v. St. Joseph R., etc., Co., 143 Mo. A. 376, 128 SW 243; Shareman v. St. Louis Transit Co., 103 Mo. A. 515, 78 SW 846. [a] An ordinance regulating street railroads by providing that conductors shall not allow women or children to leave or enter cars while in motion modifies the common-law rule of negligence of carriers and contributory negligence of passengers, and a street car conductor who permits a female passenger to attempt to alight while the car is in motion is negligent for which the street railroad is liable, unless the passenger is guilty of contributory negligence in leaving the car under the circumstances. Johnson V. St. Joseph R., etc., Co., 143 Mo. A. 376, 128 SW 243. [b] An ordinance making it unlawful to run trains at a greater speed than six miles per hour within the limits of the town is for the protection of persons who might be lawfully on or crossing the track and has no application to one attempting to board or leave a moving train. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Highnote, 99 Tex. 23, 86 SW 923 [rev (Civ. A.) 84 SW 365]; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Schuttee, (Tex. Civ. A.) 91 SW 806. 39. Sullivan v. Boston El. R. Co., 199 Mass. 73, 84 NE 844, 21 LRANS 36 and note; Dwyer v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 136 App. Div. 87, 120 NYS 634. [a] In the absence of an offer to accept a person as passenger after a car has started, the conductor is entitled to refuse to permit him to board the car, and after such refusal to use a reasonable degree of force to prevent him from boarding and entering the car, and for that purpose to lay hands on him and interfere with his person, using no more force than is necessary. Sullivan v. Boston El. R. Co., 199 Mass. 73, 84 NE 844, 21 LRANS 36; Dwyer v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 136 App. Div. 87, 120 NYS 634 (holding that, where in an action for death it appeared that plaintiff's intestate came rapidly toward a moving train and attempted to board it, and the assistant conductor, in attempting to prevent intestate from boarding, pushed him away and caused him to fall, resulting in his death, defendant could not be held liable because the conductor used more force than necessary in meeting the emergency). [b] Excessive force; wantonness. -A conductor, although entitled to use reasonable force to prevent a passenger from boarding a car after it has started, has no right to use excessive or unreasonable force, or wantonly to attack such intending passenger. Sullivan V. Boston Elevated R. Co., 199 Mass. 73, 84 NE 844. 21 LRANS 36. 40. Mathews v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 156 Mo. A. 715. 137 SW 1003. [a] lustration.-Where a person attempted to board a slowly moving street car just starting up a viaduct, and he succeeded in placing one foot attempts to board or alight from a moving train or car, under the direction or invitation of the conductor or other employee in charge thereof,42 or where he does so under force or apprehension of force, although it is not under all circumstances negligence per se to suggest to a passenger that he alight from the train or car while it is slowly moving. The fact that the next station is announced does not constitute an assurance to passengers that the car has stopped, or an invitation to alight before it has in fact stopped.45 [§ 1351] 4. Operating Other Cars or Trains. Where, on the express or implied invitation of a railroad or street railroad company, passengers go on the lower step, but was unable to | 18 AmSR 541, 7 LRA 819 (passenger 41. U. S.-Washington, etc., R. Ala.-Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Cal.-Green v. Pacific Lumber Co., N. Y.-Robson v. Nassau Electric 42. Ark. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. Ga. Southern R. Co. v. Bandy, 120 Ind.-Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. Kan.-Atchison, etc.. R. Co. V. Ky.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. La.--Jones v. Texas, etc., R. Co., Minn.--Jones v. Chicago, etc., R. Mo.-Fortune v. Missouri R. Co., N. Y.-Geiler v. Manhattan R. Co., R. Co. V. Tex.-Galveston, etc., R. Co. V. Krenek, (Civ. A.) 138 SW 1154: 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. Elliott, 26 Tex. Civ. A. 106, 61 SW 726; International, etc., R. Co. V. Rhoades, 21 Tex. Civ. A. 459, 51 SW 517. [a] Opening gates.-The act of a trainman in throwing open the gates of a passenger car, after the train has started, for a passenger to attempt to board the train is not an assurance that the attempt can be safely made, and although an invitation. it is no more than an invitation to assume a self-evident risk. Kopacka v. New York, etc.. R. Co., 88 Conn. 82. 90 A 27. [c] Authority of employee.-Where a passenger on a train under the control of a switch crew is ordered by the only member thereof present to alight, he has a right to presume that such employee has authority to give such commands. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Shelton, 30 Tex. Civ. A. 72. 69 SW 653, 70 SW 359 [aff 96 Tex. 301, 72 SW 165]. [d] Degree of care.-A carrier's employee in inviting a passenger to alight from a moving train is bound to exercise the highest degree of care for his safety. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Plott, 108 Ark. 292, 157 SW 385. See generally supra §§ 1295-1300. 43. Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Wood, 113 Ind. 544, 14 NE 572, 16 NE 197; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Richerson, 14 KvL 925. [a] Negligence of conductorWhere a passenger on arrival at her destination and on the train coming to a full stop went out on the platform, and when she arrived there the conductor signaled the train to move on, which signal the engineer obeyed and started the train before she could get off and while she was still standing on the platform, and thereupon the conductor carelessly and improperly seized her and, without any fault or negligence on her part whatever, wrenched her off the steps and jerked her to the ground while the train was in motion, whereby she sustained very great bodily injury, the railroad company was liable in damages. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wood, 113 Ind. 544, 14 NE 572, 16 NE 197. Ejection from moving train or car generally see supra § 1195. 44. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Hazzard, 26 Ill. 373; Wilburn v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 48 Mo. A. 224; Rothstein v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 171 Pa. 620, 33 A 379; Crosby v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 81 S. C. 24, 61 SE 1064. [a] Evidence of negligence.-The act of a conductor in inviting and assisting a passenger to alight before the complete stopping of a slowly moving train may be evidence of negligence in failing to exercise the high degree of care due to passengers, but does not authorize the inference that he acted willfully or in conscious disregard of his duty toward passengers. Crosby v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 81 S. C. 24, 61 SE 1064. 45. U. S.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Warren, 149 Fed. 658, 79 CCA 350; Mearns v. New Jersey Cent. R. Co., 139 Fed. 543, 71 CCA 331. La.-Morris v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 127 La. 445, 53 S 698, 31 LRANS 629. [b] Mich.-Hooker Leaving the door of a cable v. Blair, 155 NW car open and unguarded is no invita- 364. Co. tion for a passenger to jump off Miss. Alabama, etc., R. when the car is running at full Jones, 86 Miss. 263. 38 S 545. speed, however it might be regarded when the car is employed in receiving and discharging passengers. Weber v. Kansas City Cable R. Co., 100 Mo. 194. 12 SW 804, 13 SW 587, V. Tenn.-Payne v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., 106 Tenn. 167, 61 SW 86. [a] Illustrations. (1) Where the porter or guard of a passenger train called out, "Jersey City; last stop; on or near to the tracks in waiting for, getting on, or alighting from, a train or car, it is the duty of the company to operate its trains or cars at such places with such care as not to imperil the safety of such passengers; and if it fails so to do it is liable for injuries caused thereby, and the measure of care and protection that such persons have a right to expect is not affected by the fact that other ways are provided, not requiring the going on or crossing of the track on the company's premises.*7 And in such cases the strict rule as to looking and listening which is in general applicable to persons crossing the tracks of railroad companies does not apply, the passenger having a right to suppose that the place where he is allowed to get on board, or alight from, a train or car is a safe place,48 and Ill. 42, 77 NE 592]; Chicago, etc., R. Ind.-Pere Marquette R. Co. V. Iowa.-Bloom v. Sioux City Tract. all out," and followed it by opening | Ill. A. 300 [rev on other grounds 221 | a the [b] Pointing out hotel.-Where a brakeman, when informed that passenger desires to alight at a station and go to a hotel there, informs him that the station is on one side of the track and the hotel on the other, and that when the train reaches there he will show the passenger where to get off, and brakeman, on the train reaching the station. at or about the time he opens the door, says to the passenger, "There is your hotel," and the passenger alights while the train is in motion and is injured, the carrier is not guilty of negligence, since the conduct of the brakeman is not an invitation or instruction to the passenger to alight nor an inducement to him to get into a place of danger causing him to fall from the car. Murray v. Southern Pac. Co., 225 Fed. 297. Stop after call of station see infra § 1361. 46. U. S.-Chunn v. Washington City, etc.. R. Co., 207 U. S. 302, 28 SCt 63, 52 L. ed. 219; Delaware, etc., R. Co. v. Price, 221 Fed. 848, 137 CCA 406 [certiorari den 238 U. S. 636 mem, 35 SCt 939 mem, 59 L. ed. 1500 mem]; Norfolk, etc., Terminal Co. v. Rotolo, 195 Fed. 231, 115 CCA 183; Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Dupont, 138 Fed. 840, 64 CCA 478; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. King, 99 Fed. 251, 40 CCA 432, 49 LRA 102; Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Coggins, 88 Fed. 455, 32 CCA 1; Robostelli v. New York, etc., R. Co., 33 Fed. 796. Ark. Cook v. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co., 120 Ark. 394, 179 SW 501; Dillahunty v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 119 Ark. 392, 178 SW 420; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hutchinson, 101 Ark. 424, 142 SW 527; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Tomlinson, 69 Ark. 489, 64 SW 347. Cal.-Franklin V. Southern California Motor Road Co., 85 Cal. 63, 24 P 723. Ga.-Columbus R. Co. v. Asbell, 133 Ga. 573, 66 SE 902; Savannah. etc., R. Co. v. Hatcher, 115 Ga. 379, 41 SE 606. Ill. Chicago Terminal Transfer Co. v. Kotoski, 199 Ill. 383, 65 NE 350 [aff 101 II. A. 300]; Pennsylvania Co. v. Reidy, 198 Ill. 9, 64 NE 698 [aff 99 Ill. A. 477]; Pennsylvania Co. v. McCaffrey, 173 Ill. 169, 50 NE 713; Illinois, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 123 [10 C.J.-59] Kan. -Koran v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 85 Kan. 707, 118 P 875; Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Holloway, 71 Kan. 1, 80 P 31, 114 AmSR 462. Ky.-Louisville R. Co. v. Hudgins, 124 Ky. 79, 98 SW 275, 30 KyL 316, 7 LRANS 152; South Covington, etc.. St. R. Co. v. Beatty, 50 SW 239, 20 KyL 1845; Nichols v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 2 SW 181, 8 KyL 519. La.-Conway v. New Orleans City, etc., R. Co., 51 La. Ann. 146, 24 S 780. Mass.-Millett v. New York, etc., Minn.-Fonda v. St. Paul City R. Miss.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. etc., R. Co., 127 Mo. 38, 29 SW 848; Nebr.-Chicago, etc.. R. Co. V. N. J.-Klein y. Jewett, 26 N. J. Eq. N. Y.-Parsons v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 113 N. Y. 355, 21 NE 145, 10 AmSR 450, 3 LRA 683; Archer v. New York, etc., R. Co., 106 N. Y. 589, 13 NE 318; Terry v. Jewett, 78 N. Y. 338; D'Arcy v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 165 App. Div. 757, 152 NYS 500; Stevens v. Union R. Co., 75 App. Div. 602, 78 NYS 624 [aff 176 N. Y. 607 mem, 68 NE 1125 mem]; Jewell v. New York Cent., etc.. R. Co., 27 App. Div. 500, 50 NYS 848: Armstrong v. New York Cent., etc.. R. Co., 66 Barb. 437 [aff 64 N. Y. 635 mem]; Gonzales v. New York, etc., R. Co., 39 HowPr 407. etc., R. N. C.-Ray v. Aberdeen, Tenn.-Chattanooga Electric R. Co. Tex.-East Line, etc., R. Co. v. Va.-Washington, etc., R. Co. v. NS 608; Smith v. Union Trunk Line, See generally Railroads [33 Cyc 808]; Street Railroads [36 Cyc 1515] [a] Running a freight train at a high rate of speed past a station (1) where a passenger train is receiving and discharging passengers is negligence; and it is also negligence so to run a freight train just as a passenger train is pulling into a station, especially when the track on which the freight train is moving is between the depot and the track on which the passenger train is moving. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Kelly, 80 Ill. A. 675 [aff 182 111. 267, 54 NE 979]. (2) The running of a freight train between a passenger train and the station during the time the passenger train is stopped at the station is negligence as to awaiting passengers who suffer injury by reason of insufficient opportunity to get on board. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Holloway, 71 Kan. 1, 80 P 31, 114 AmSR 462. [b] Servants operating the train of one railroad are bound to use reasonable precautions as to passengers who have alighted from a train of another railroad. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Ryan, 62 Ill. A. 264 [aff 165 III. 88, 46 NE 208]. [c] Alighting from wrong side of car. Where a passenger is struck by a car passing in the opposite direction as he is endeavoring to alight from the wrong side of a car through open gates, gates being required by ordinance, such act indicates negligence. Elliott v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 68 Wash. 129, 122 P 614. [d] Where a passenger on a street car receives a transfer, it is the duty of the street car company to afford him an opportunity to transfer from the car in which he is riding to the car in which the transfer entitles him to ride and time and opportunity to reach a place of safety within or the car before running cars on another track in such a manner as to endanger the passenger. Koran v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 85 Kan. 707, 118 P 875. on [e] Negligent backing of train.— (1) It is negligence to back a train into a railroad yard where passengers are rightfully moving about, without warning and without having anyone in a position to observe the condition of the tracks and to signal the engineer or caution others in case of impending peril. Ray V. Aberdeen, etc., R. Co., 141 N. C. 84, 53 SE 622. (2) Running a train at a high speed the reverse way of the track, without warning, past a platform crowded with passengers constitutes negligence. D'Arcy V. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 165 App. Div. 757, 152 NYS 500. Contributory negligence places see infra § 1492. at such 47. Delaware. etc., R. Co. v. Price, 221 Fed. 848, 137 CCA 406 [certiorari den 238 U. S. 636 mem. 35 SCt 939 mem, 59 L. ed. 1500 mem]. 48. U. S.-Warner V. Baltimore, Wash.-Elliott v. Seattle, etc., R. Pa.-Shutt V. Cumberland Valley |