| precautions shall be taken.53 Where a street car is standing discharging passengers, it is the duty of the motorman in charge of an approaching car on a parallel track to have his car under such control that it may be stopped on a moment's notice;54 but it is not the duty of a carrier to stop its car, or slow up, or give a signal, on every occasion of meeting another car.55 But the duty of servants operating other trains or cars to look out for passengers who are boarding, or alighting from, another train or car does not involve absolute liability, as they have the right, in the absence of notice to the contrary, to assume that persons on or near tracks will not be negligent,56 and if they exercise that all trains will comply with the law by giving warning, displaying lights, etc.19 Thus, where it is necessary or proper for passengers in boarding, or alighting from, a train or car to go on or near to another track on which another train or car is approaching, it is the duty of the carrier's employees to keep a proper lookout,50 to keep the speed of the approaching train or car under such control as is proper and reasonable under the circumstances and, if necessary, to stop it,51 and to give such warning by bell, whistle, or otherwise, of its approach, as will reasonably protect the boarding or alighting passengers from injury,52 particularly where a statute or ordinance requires that such See generally Railroads [33 Cyc | 42, 77 NE 592]. 836]; Street Railroads [36 Cyc 1537 52. Ark.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. et seq]. v. Tomlinson, 69 Ark. 489, 64 SW 347. Del.-MacFeat v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 21 Del. 52, 62 A 898. Contributory negligence in going on or crossing tracks see infra § 1492. 49. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Doan, 93 Ill. A. 247 [aff 195 Ill. 168, 62 NE 826]; Sonier v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 141 Mass. 10, 6 NE 84. 50. Cook v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 120 Ark. 394, 179 SW 501; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Douglas, 119 Ark. 33, 175 SW 518; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Tomlinson, 69 Ark. 489, 64 SW 347; Louisville R. Co. v. Mitchell, 138 Ky. 190, 127 SW 770; Conway v. New Orleans City, etc.. R. Co., 51 La. Ann. 146, 24 S 780; Ray v. Aberdeen, etc., R. Co., 141 N. C. 84, 53 SE 622. See also cases supra note 46. [a] Constructive knowledge. Trainmen keeping lookout on approaching a station platform which prospective passengers stand near the track are not chargeable with knowledge that one is so near the track that he will be struck by the engine beam. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Douglas, 119 Ark. 33, 175 SW 518. on [b] Coaches on sidetrack.-Where a carrier places coaches for the reception of passengers on a sidetrack adjacent to a main track intervening between it and the station, and with the carrier's acquiescence passengers are passing to and fro from the station to the coaches, it is negligence to back an engine at a rapid speed along the main track, without any efficient lookout or warning of its approach. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Tomlinson, 69 Ark. 489, 64 SW 347. 51. Del.-MacFeat v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 21 Del. 52, 62 A 898. Ga. Savannah, etc., R. Co. V. Hatcher, 115 Ga. 379, 41 SE 606. Ill. Illinois, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 123 Ill. A. 300 [rev on other grounds 221 Ill. 42, 77 NE 592]. Ind.-Evansville St. R. Co. V. Gentry, 147 Ind. 408, 44 NE 311, 62 AmSR 421, 37 LRA 378. Kan.-Stuckey v. Dunham, 96 Kan. 427, 151 P 1107. Ky.-Louisville R. Co. v. Mitchell, 138 Ky. 190. 127 SW 770; 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. Mass.-Millett v. New York, etc., R. Co., 211 Mass. 486, 98 NE 574. Mo.-Hornstein v. United R. Co., 97 Mo. A. 271, 70 SW 1105. Wash.-Smith V. Union Trunk Line, 18 Wash. 351, 51 P 400, 45 LRA 169. See also cases supra note 46. [a] Thus, it is the duty of the operatives of a train approaching on another track from the opposite direction to exercise a degree of care commensurate with the situation and the danger, and it is negligence to operate such a train at a rate of speed from twelve to fifteen miles per hour at the point where such alighting passengers are required to cross and actually are crossing. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Johnson, 123 Ill. A. 300 [rev on other grounds 221 Ill. Ga. Savannah, etc., R. Co. V. Hatcher. 115 Ga. 379, 41 SE 606. Ill.-Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Winters, 175 Ill. 293, 51 NE 901 [aff 65 III. A. 435]. Ind.-Evansville St. R. Co. V. Gentry, 147 Ind. 408, 44 NE 311, 62 AmSR 421, 37 LRA 378. Ky.-South Covington, etc., St. R. Co. v. Beatty, 50 SW 239, 20 KyL 1845. Mass.-Millett v. New York, etc., R. Co., 211 Mass. 486, 98 NE 574. Mo.-Hornstein v. United R. Co., 97 Mo. A. 271, 70 SW 1105. N. Y.-Gonzales v. New York, etc., R. Co., 39 HowPr 407. Tex.-St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Casseday, (Civ. A.) 48 SW 6 [rev on other grounds 92 Tex. 525, 50 SW 125]. Wash.-Smith V. Union Trunk Line, 18 Wash. 351, 51 P 400, 45 LRA 169. See also supra note 46. 53. Dillahunty v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 119 Ark. 392, 178 SW 420; Jones v. New Orleans R., etc., Co., 123 La. 1060, 49 S 706; Denison, etc., R. Co. v. Craig, 35 Tex. Civ. A. 548, 80 SW 865. See generally Railroads [33 Cyc 808]; Street Railroads [36 Cyc 1460]. [a] Statutory provisions as to signals at public crossings do not control the duty of the carrier to operate its trains with reference to the safety of passengers boarding, or alighting from, other trains. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Morgan, 26 Tex. Civ. A. 378, 64 SW 688. [b] A statute requiring trainmen to keep a lookout for persons on the track has no application to the trainmen in taking on passengers. Dillahunty v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 119 Ark. 392, 178 SW 420. 54. Evansville St. R. Co. V. Gentry, 147 Ind. 408, 44 NE 311, 62 AmSR 421, 37 LRA 378; Louisville R. Co. v. Kennedy, 162 Ky. 560, 172 SW 970, AnnCas1916E 996; Moore v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., (Mo. A.) 180 SW 408; Moore v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 142 Mo. A. 290, 126 SW 181; Reed v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 87 App. Div. 427, 84 NYS 454 [rev on other grounds 180 N. Y. 315, 73 NE 41]. See also cases supra note 51. until they emerge from behind the waiting car, there is necessarily great danger from accidents. Since there is neither opportunity for the passenger to observe the approaching car, nor for the motorman on the approaching car to observe the passenger until he suddenly emerges from behind the waiting car, the danger is even greater than if he were actually standing on the parallel track. In view of these circumstances, proper care is not exercised unless the approaching car is under such control that it may be stopped on a moment's notice." Louisville, R. Co. v. Kennedy, 162 Ky. 560, 564, 172 SW 970, AnnCas1916E 996. [b] Given rate of speed. Where a street car stops at a street crossing, it is a warning to others using the street that passengers may get off and pass to either sidewalk, and it is a situation to be considered in determining whether a given rate of speed of a car on another track is negligence. Moore v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 142 Mo. A. 290, 126 SW 181. [c] A street railroad company is chargeable with notice that passengers when they alight from cars are liable to cross to the opposite side of the street and over the adjoining track, and the obligation is imposed on it to exercise reasonable care in the operation of its cars, having regard to such condition. Reed v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 87 App. Div. 427, 84 NYS 454 [rev on other grounds 180 N. Y. 315, 73 NE 41]. 55. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Coit, 50 Ill. A. 640. 56. Cook v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 120 Ark. 394, 179 SW 501; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Proctor, 122 Ky. 92. 89 SW 714, 28 KyL 598; Ricciardelli v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 165 App. Div. 152, 150 NYS 593. [a] Crossing tracks.-An engineer of a train approaching a station had a right to assume that intending passengers aware of the approach of the train would not attempt to cross the tracks when the engine was within fifty feet, and in the absence of notice that they were so crossing he had a right to proceed to the usual and necessary stopping point for a train of three cars, although he thereby proceeded about a car length farther than on other occasions when the train consisted of only two cars, especially where passengers could, and most of them did, board the train from the side on which a person struck by the train was standing before he attempted to cross the track. Ricciardelli v. New York Cent.. etc.. R. Co., 165 App. Div. 152, 150 NYS 593. [a] "The reason for the rule is apparent. When a car stops to permit a passenger to alight, he is still a passenger until he has had a reasonable opportunity to reach a place of safety. He has no opportunity to observe the approach of a car until near the parallel track. He cannot be seen by the motorman of the approaching car until he emerges from behind the waiting car. The fact that the car is stopped to discharge passengers makes it reasonably certain that some of the passengers will attempt to cross the parallel track. It being reasonably certain that passengers will attempt to cross the parallel track, and that their presence can not be detected 598. [b] An engineer of a freight train on a sidetrack has a right to assume that a passenger walking on the sidetrack toward a passenger train which is standing on the main track will leave the track, and is not required to give warning of the approach of his train, or to check his speed until he has reason to believe that the passenger is not aware of the approach of the train or will not leave the track. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Proctor, 122 Ky. 92, 89 SW 714, 28 KyL 58 proper care under the circumstances, the company will not be liable for the resulting injuries;57 nor does the duty apply after the passenger has left the place of alighting, nor where he is on a part of the premises where he is not authorized to be.59 The violation of a statute or ordinance respecting the rate of speed of a car or train may of itself constitute negligence as to a passenger injured thereby while awaiting transportation at a station.60 [§ 1352] 5. Assistance of Passengers-a. In General. In the absence of circumstances showing that a passenger about to board, or alight from, a car requires assistance, there is as a general rule no duty personally to assist him,61 nor is it necessarily incumbent on the carrier's employees to direct a passenger how he shall get on or off,62 or how he shall go after he has alighted.63 A voluntary promise by the conductor or other employee to assist a passenger in alighting at a certain station does not impose any liability on the carrier for a failure of the conductor or employee to keep such promise, unless he has notice 57. U. S.-Lehigh Valley R. Co. | Cent. R. Co. v. Proctor, 122 Ky. 92, v. Dupont, 128 Fed. 840, 64 CCA 478. 89 SW 714, 28 KyL 598. Ill. Ackerstadt v. Chicago City R. Co., 194 Ill. 616, 62 NE 884 [aff 94 Ill. A. 130]; Chicago City R. Co. v. Burrell, 70 Ill. A. 60. Ind.-Pere Marquette R. Co. V. Strange, 171 Ind. 160, 84 NE 819, 85 NE 1026, 20 LRANS 1041. Iowa.- -Bloom v. Sioux City Tract. Co., 122 NW 831. Ky. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Proctor, 122 Ky. 92, 89 SW 714, 28 KyL 598. Mo.-Van Natta v. People's St. R., etc., Co., 133 Mo. 13, 34 SW 505. N. Y.-Goldberg V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 133 N. Y. 561, 30 NE 597. Pa.-Malpass v. Hestonville, etc., Pass. R. Co., 189 Pa. 599, 42 A 291. [a] Thus (1) a railroad company is not negligent in the management of its train, rendering it liable for injuries to a passenger while approaching a train in the nighttime for the purpose of being transported, where the engine by which plaintiff was struck approached the station with its headlight burning, bell ringing, steam shut off, running at a low rate of speed and under control, and where when plaintiff was discovered attempting to cross in front of the engine the emergency brake was at once applied, and the train stopped in the shortest possible distance. Pere Marquette R. Co. v. Strange, 171 Ind. 160, 84 NE 819, 85 NE 1026, 20 LRANS 1041. (2) Where, while a street car which had reached the end of its run was being prepared for the return trip, a person mounted the running board before the barrier to prevent him from entering on that side had been removed, and was struck by a car on the other track, the company was not negligent in failing to provide against such act. Malpass Hestonville, etc., Pass. R. Co., 189 Pa. 599, 42 A 291. an V. [b] Right to go ahead. Where one of two street cars about to pass on parallel tracks has started after passengers have alighted, the motorman on the other car may assume that all the passengers who wish to do so have alighted and that the road is clear for him to go ahead. Ackerstadt v. Chicago City R. Co., 194 Ill. 616, 62 NE 884. 58. Com. v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 129 Mass. 500, 37 AmR 382. 59. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Proctor, 122 Ky. 92, 89 SW 714, 28 KyL 598; Perego v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 158 Mich. 225, 122 NW 535. [a] Illustration.-While one walking along a railroad sidetrack which he has to cross to take a train standing on the main track is a passenger, he is nevertheless where a passenger is not authorized to be and cannot demand of the carrier the high degree of care due by a carrier to its passengers, and the measure of care required of operatives of a freight train on the sidetrack is a reasonable the degree of care commensurate with the danger for the safety of persons passing to and from the passenger train and the station, and in exercise of such reasonable degree of care the operatives of the freight train should give a reasonable warning of the approach of the train, should maintain a reasonable lookout, and should run the train at a reasonable rate of speed. Illinois 60. MacFeat v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 21 Del. 52, 62 A 898; Illinois, etc., R. Co. v. Andrews, 116 Ill. A. 8; Houston, etc., R. Co. V. Schuttee, (Tex. Civ. A.) 91 SW 806. See generally Railroads [33 Cyc 808]; Street Railroads [36 Cyc 1458]. Dangerous rate of speed generally see infra § 1386. 61. U. S.-Younglove v. Pullman Co., 207 Fed. 797. Ala.-Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Carlisle, 2 Ala. A. 514, 517, 56 S 737 [cit Cyc]. Ark.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Green, 85 Ark. 117, 119, 107 SW 168, 14 LRANS 1148 [quot Cyc]. Ga.-Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. Thigpen, 141 Ga. 90, 80 SE 626; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Madden, 135 Ga. 205, 69 SE 165, 31 LRANS 813, 21 AnnCas 1077; Western, etc., R. Co. v. Earwood, 104 Ga. 127, 29 SE 913; Central R. Co. v. Whitehead, 74 Ga. 441; Mize v. Southern R. Co., 15 Ga. A. 265, 82 SE 925. Ill. Burge v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 193 III. A. 492. Ind.-Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. V. Beals, 50 Ind. A. 450, 98 NE 453; Sellers v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 40 Ind. A. 319, 81 NE 1087; Indianapolis Tract., etc., Co. v. Pressell, 39 Ind. A. 472, 77 NE 357. Iowa.-Ray v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 163 Iowa 430, 144 NW 1018; Mitchell v. Des Moines City R. Co., 161 Iowa 100, 141 NW 43; Merryman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 135 Iowa 591, 113 NW 357; Raben v. Central Iowa R. Co., 74 Iowa 732, 34 NW 621; Raben v. Central Iowa R. Co., 73 Iowa 579, 35 NW 645, 5 AmSR 708. Ky.-Bullitt v. Louisville R. Co.. 142 Ky. 670, 134 SW 1153; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Lee, 140 Ky. 91, 130 SW 813; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cruse, 123 Ky. 463, 96 SW 821, 29 KyL 914, 8 LRANS 299, 13 AnnCas 593. Mass.-Hawes v. Boston El. R. Co., 192 Mass. 324, 78 NE 480. Mich. Selby v. Detroit R. Co., 122 Mich. 311, 81 NW 106. Minn.-Hoblit v. Minneapolis St. R. Co., 111 Minn. 77, 126 NW 407. Miss. New Orleans, etc., R. Co. V. Statham, 42 Miss. 607, 97 AmD 478 and note. Mo.-Yarnell v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 113 Mo. 570, 21 SW 1, 18 LRA 599; Hurt v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 94 Mo. 255, 7 SW 1, 4 AmSR 374; Deskins v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 151 Mo. A. 432. 132 SW 45; Young v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 93 Mo. A. 267; Deming v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 80 Mo. A. 152. Nebr.-Scott v. Union Pac. R. Co., 99 Nebr. 97, 155 NW 217. N. Y.-Hanlon V. New Jersey Cent. R. Co., 187 N. Y. 73, 79 NË 846, 116 AmSR 591, 10 LRANS 411, 10 AnnCas 366 and note [aff 110 App. Div. 918, 96 NYS 1127]; Lafflin v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 106 N. Y. 136, 12 NE 599, 60 AmR 433. Okl.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Dobyns, 157 P 735; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Fick, 149 P 1126; St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Lee, 37 Okl. 545, 132 P 1072, 46 LRANS 357. Tex.-Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Buchanan, 31 Tex. Civ. A. 209, 72 SW 96; Texas Midland R. Co. v. Terry, 27 Tex. Civ. A. 341, 65 SW 697. Wyo.-Chicago. etc.. R. Co. V. Lampman, 18 Wyo. 106, 121, 104 P 64 533, 25 LRANS 217, AnnCas1912C 788 [cit Cyc]. [a] Assistance matter of courtesy. -All assistance that a conductor may extend to women without escorts or with children, or to persons who are sick and ask his assistance in getting on or off trains, has been said to be purely a matter of courtesy, and not at all incumbent on him in the line of his public duty. Selby v. Detroit R. Co., 122 Mich. 311, 81 NW 106; New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Statham, 42 Miss. 607, 97 AmD 478, But see Dawdy v. Hamilton, etc., Electric R. Co., 5 Ont. L. 92 (where it was said that it is the duty of the conductor of a street car to assist people in getting on and off the car). [b] Where access to a train at a station is easy, it is not required of the carrier's employees to assist a passenger in getting on board. Yarnell v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 113 Mo. 570, 21 SW 1, 18 LRA 599. [c] Where the place to alight is reasonably safe, assistance cannot be claimed by a passenger as a matter of right. Deskins V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 151 Mo. A. 432, 132 SW 45. [d] Rule requiring assistance to female passengers.-Nonconformity to a rule of the carrier requiring conductors to assist female passengers in alighting will not impose liability on the carrier, unless known to and relied on by the,passenger, as such Central duty is wholly gratuitous. of Georgia R. Co. v. Carlisle, 2 Ala. A. 514, 56 S 737. [e] Woman with escort.-(1) Where a woman passenger is accompanied by her husband or a friend who is apparently capable of assisting her, the duty of the carrier to give her assistance is suspended, and no recovery can be had for a failure to exercise it. Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Carlisle, 2 Ala. A. 514, 56 S 737. (2) Where the train stops only a minute, and the train steps are unfrom the reasonably high center platform, and a passenger is carrying a baby, but is also accompanied by her husband and brother-in-law, the brakeman is not bound to assist her in boarding, unless requested so to do. R. Louisville, etc., Co. Dyer, 152 Ky. 264, 153 SW 194, 48 LRANS 816 and note. (3) Where there are no unusual difficulties at the place of entry to a train, and a passenger carrying a child is attended by two friends, who can reasonably be expected to assist her, if necessary, there is no duty devolving on the railroad company to assist her. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Green, 85 Ark. 117, 119, 107 SW 168, 14 LRA NS 1148 [quot Cyc]. V. 62. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cruse, 123 Ky. 463. 96 SW 821, 29 KyL 914, 8 LRANS 299, 13 AnnCas 593; Nichols v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 90 Mich. 203, 51 NW 364. [a] Ignorance of intention.-In the absence of knowledge on the part of the employees of a carrier of a passenger's desire or intention to alight, it was not incumbent on them to point out to such passenger the proper place to do So. Nichols V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 90 Mich. 203, 51 NW 364. 63. Lee v. Boston El. R. Co., 182 Mass. 454, 65 NE 822. 64. Western, etc., R. Co. v. Ear Negligence in rendering assistance. Where a carrier's employees render assistance, even where it is not necessary, it will be liable for any negligence connected with the rendering of such assistance within the scope of the employee's employment, reasonable care being required in such cases,69 although it has been held that, where the assistance is necessary, the same high degree of care is required in such cases as during actual transportation.70 of members in so assisting a passenger." 72 Assisting from one car to another. It is not negligence for a conductor after inviting and assisting a passenger from one car to another to enable her to get a seat to fail to assist her down the aisle to a seat, where she is not weak or sick or the speed of the train is not excessive or unusual, and a curve in the road which is reached while she is walking is not a sharp one;73 and in the absence of anything shown as to his manner, the offer of a conductor to assist a passenger from the baggage car to a car in the rear on her hesitating to move while the car is in motion, after he has announced that there are seats there, is not an order for her to go there.74 75 [1353] b. Duty Dependent on Circumstances. The duty of rendering personal assistance to a passenger in boarding or alighting depends on the circumstances and conditions surrounding the passenger in the particular case, and it may become the duty of the carrier's employees to assist a passenger in boarding or alighting, where the circumstances are such as to indicate that he requires such assistance," as where there is some unusual erally supra § 1308. Third persons. The carrier is not liable for the competency or negligence of a third person who is not its employee or authorized to act for it in assisting a passenger."1 But where the contract of a carrier with a society to run a special train provides for members thereof to assist passengers to alight, it is liable for incompetency or negligence wood, 104 Ga. 127, 29 SE 913; Gage | 1028; International, etc., R. Co. v. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 75 Miss. 17. Anderson, 15 Tex. Civ. A. 180, 53 SW 21 S 657. 606. [a] Promise of conductor to look after child traveling alone. The promise of a conductor to look after a seven-year-old boy who is traveling alone, and to inform the next conductor of the presence of the boy on the train, does not bind the carrier. Gage v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 75 Miss. 17, 21 S 657. 65. Southern R. Co. v. Hobbs, 118 Ga. 227, 45 SE 23, 63 LRA 68; Western, etc., R. Co. v. Earwood, 104 Ga. 127, 29 SE 913; Mercer v. Cincinnati Northern R. Co., 151 Mich. 566, 115 NW 733. [a]. A promise by a conductor to a partially blind female passenger to assist her in alighting from the train when it reaches her destination is not an undertaking on the part of the conductor to enter the car in which she is riding, take charge of her bundles, and escort her from her seat down the aisle and out on to the platform, unless the passenger is so helpless as to require this extraordinary attention. Southern R. Co. V. Hobbs, 118 Ga. 227, 45 SE 23, 63 LRA 68. 66. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. McCullough, 18 Tex. Civ. A. 534, 45 SW 324. 67. U. S.-Younglove v. Pullman Co., 207 Fed. 797; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Reed, 60 Fed. 694, 9 CCA 219. Ala.-Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Carlisle, 2 Ala. A. 514, 56 S 737. Ga.-Western, etc., R. Co. v. Voils, 98 Ga. 446, 26 SE 483, 35 LRA 655. Ind. Citizens' St. R. Co. v. Shepherd. 29 Ind. A. 412, 62 NE 300. Iowa.-Ray v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 163 Iowa 430, 144 NW 1018. Ky. Jonas V. South Covington, etc., St. R. Co., 162 Ky. 171, 172 SW 131, AnnCas1916E 965; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Lee, 140 Ky. 91, 130 SW 813. Mass.-Black v. New York, etc., R. Co., 193 Mass. 448, 79 NE 797, 7 LRA NS 148, 9 AnnCas 485; Moody v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 189 Mass. 277, 75 NE 631. Mo.- Walker v. Quincy, etc., R. Co., 178 SW 108; Hanks v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 60 Mo. A. 274; Mackin v. People's St. R., etc., Co., 45 Mo. A. 82. N. Y.-Hanlon V. New Jersey Cent. R. Co., 187 N. Y. 73. 79 NE 846. 116 AmSR 591, 10 LRANS 411 and note. 10 AnnCas 366 and note [aff 110 App. Div. 918, 96 NYS 1127]. Okl. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Pitchford, 44 Okl. 197, 143 P 1146. Tex. International, etc., R. Co. v. Gilmer, 18 Tex. Civ. A. 680, 45 SW Wis.-Werner v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 105 Wis. 300, 81 NW 416. 68. Western, etc., R. Co. v. Voils, 98 Ga. 446, 26 SE 483, 35 LRA 655; Hanlon v. New Jersey Cent. R. Co., 187 N. Y. 73, 79 NE 846, 116 AmSR 591, 10 LRANS 411, 10 AnnCas 366 and note [aff 110 App. Div. 918, 96 NYS 11271; Drew v. Sixth Ave. R. Co., 1 Abb. Dec. (N. Y.) 556. But see Ray v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 163 Iowa 430, 144 NW 1018 (holding that a carrier was responsible for injuries to a passenger in alighting because of the brakeman's negligence, whether he was acting within the scope of his employment or not). [a] Illustrations.-(1) Proof that defendant's train having started before plaintiff could get on stopped for her away from the platform where she could not get on without assistance was sufficient to support a finding that defendant's servant in assisting her was acting within the Scope of his duties. Western, etc., R. Co. v. Voils, 98 Ga. 446, 26 SE 483, 35 LRA 655. (2) A driver is acting in the line of his duty in helping a child or infirm person on or off the car, and the carrier is liable for the negligence of a driver in this respect. Drew v. Sixth Ave. R. Co., 1 Abb. Dec. (N. Y.) 556. 69. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Green, 85 Ark. 117, 107 SW 168, 14 LRANS 1148; Moody v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 189 Mass. 277, 75 NE 631. [a] Where a passenger does not need assistance in alighting from a train, but the conductor undertakes to assist him in compliance with the rule of the company requiring conductors to render assistance to passengers boarding, or alighting from, trains, the company is liable only for the failure of the conductor to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. Moody v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 189 Mass. 277, 75 NE 631. 70. Walker v. Quincy, etc., R. Co., (Mo.) 178 SW 108; Vicksburg, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson, (Tex. Civ. A.) 133 SW 925. [a] High degree of care.-A brakeman who undertakes to assist a passenger to board the train is bound to exercise toward her that high degree of care that would be exercised by a very competent, cautious, and prudent person, under the same circumstances. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson, (Tex. Civ. A.) 133 SW 925. 76 72. Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. Kemp, (Tex. Civ. A.) 173 SW 532. 73. Plummer v. Washington, etc., R. Co.. 124 Md. 200, 206, 92 A 536 [quot Cyc]. 74. Plummer v. Washington, etc., R. Co., 124 Md. 200, 92 A 536. 75. Daniels V. Western, etc., R. Co., 96 Ga. 786, 22 SE 956; Southern R. Co. v. Wright, 6 Ga. A. 172, 64 SE 703; Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Whitfield, 44 Miss. 466; International, etc., R. Co. v. Williams, (Tex. Civ. A.) 183 SW 1185. 76. Ga.-Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Madden, 135 Ga. 205, 69 SE 165, 31 LRANS 813 and note, 21 AnnCas 1077 and note; Mize v. Southern R. Co., 15 Ga. A. 265, 82 SE 925; Southern R. Co. v. Crabb, 10 Ga. A. 559, 73 SE 859. Ind.-Indianapolis Tract., etc., Co. v. Pressell, 39 Ind. A. 472, 77 NE 357; Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. Taylor, 25 Ind. A. 679, 58 NE 852. Iowa. Mitchell v. Des Moines City R. Co., 161 Iowa 100, 141 NW 43; Dieckmann v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 145 Iowa 250, 121 NW 676, 139 Am SR 420, 31 LRANS 338; Dieckmann v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 105 NW 526. N. Y.-Hasbrouck V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 202 N. Y. 363, 95 NE 808, 35 LRANS 537, AnnCas1912D 1150 [aff 137 App. Div. 532, 122 NYS 123 (aff 64 Misc. 478, 118 NYS 735)]. N. C.-Brown v. Asheville Power, etc., Co., 171 N. C. 555, 88 SE 858; Clark v. Durham Tract. Co., 138 N. C. 77, 50 SE 518, 107 AmSR 526. Okl.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Lee, 37 Okl. 545, 132 P 1072, 46 LRANS 357. S. C.-Gilkerson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 99 S. C. 426, 83 SE 592, LRA1915C 664, AnnCas1916B 248; Richardson v. Augusta, etc., R. Co., 79 S. C. 535, 61 SE 83; Martin V. Southern R. Co., 77 S. C. 370, 58 SE 3, 122 AmSR 574. Tenn.-Southern R. Co. v. Mitchell, 98 Tenn. 27, 40 SW 72. Tex.-Missouri, etc.. R. Co. V. Buchanan, 31 Tex. Civ. A. 209, 72 SW 96. "The rule is well settled that if there are circumstances which re-. quire the assistance of the conductor to a passenger in alighting from a train, the railroad company is liable if the conductor has notice of such circumstances and fails to render the necessary assistance.' Gilkerson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 99 S. C. 426, 428, 83 SE 592, LRA1915C 664, AnnCas1916B 248. 71. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Kemp, [a] "Thus, in the case of a sick, (Tex. Civ. A.) 173 SW 532. See gen-old, or infirm passenger or one mak 78 danger or difficulty arising from the place or means afforded for alighting," or where the passenger is to the knowledge of the employees of the carrier so infirm or disabled as to require assistance,7 particularly where a request for assistance is made." But such employees are not required to use diligence to discover the feeble condition of a passen 79 ger and of his inability to help himself.80 [ 1354] 6. Appliances and Means for Boarding or Alighting.81 A carrier must exercise care in providing safe appliances and means for the assistance and protection of passengers in getting on and off its cars,82 and in operating the same.s In some cases it has been held that the means and ap ing request for assistance, it un- | getting off the train, and if by rea- [b] Woman with heavy hand baggage. The duty to assist passengers boarding trains carries with it as an incident, under reasonable circumstances, the duty to assist a woman traveling with heavy hand baggage. Hasbrouck v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 202 N. Y. 363, 95 NE 808, 35 LRANS 537, AnnCas1912D 1150 [aff 137 App. Div. 532. 122 NYS 123 (aff 64 Misc. 478, 118 NYS 735)]; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Buchanan, 21 Tex. Civ. A. 209, 72 SW 96 (woman with bundles and two children, requesting assistance). 77. Ga. Mize v. Southern R. Co., 15 Ga. A. 265, 82 SE 925. Ind.-New York, etc.. R. Co. v. Doane, 115 Ind. 435, 17 NE 913, 7 Am SR 451. Iowa. Mitchell v. Des Moines City R. Co., 161 Iowa 100, 141 NW 43. Ky.-Louisville, etc.. R. Co. V. Davis, 157 Ky. 239, 162 SW 1124; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Dyer, 152 Ky. 264, 267, 153 SW 194, 48 LRANS 816 and note [cit Cyc]; Sweet v. Louisville R. Co., 113 Ky. 15, 67 SW 4, 23 KyL 2279. Mass.-Jacobs v. West End St. R. Co., 178 Mass. 116, 59 NE 639. Mich.-Serviss v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 169 Mich. 564, 135 NW 343. Minn.-Jarmy v. Duluth St. R. Co., 55 Minn. 271, 56 NW 813. Miss. Carson v. Leathers, 57 Miss. 650; Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Whitfield, 44 Miss. 466, 7 AmR 699. N. H.-Foss v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 66 N. H. 256, 21 A 222, 49 AmSR 607, 11 LRA 367. N. Y.-Maverick v. Eighth Ave. R. Co., 36 N. Y. 378, 2 Transcr. A. 125; Truesdell v. Erie R. Co., 114 App. Div. 34, 99 NYS 694. S. C.-Brodie v. Carolina Midland R. Co., 46 S. C. 203, 24 SE 180; Madden v. Port Royal, etc., R. Co., 41 S. C. 440, 19 SE 951, 20 SE 65; Simms v. South Carolina R. Co., 27 S. C. 268, 3 SE 301. Tenn.-Southern R. Co. v. Mitchell, 98 Tenn. 77, 40 SW 72. Tex.-Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 79 Tex. 78, 15 SW 264, 23 AmSR 308, 11 LRA 395 [app dism 154 U. S. 520 mem, 14 SCt 1154 mem, 38 L. ed. 1084 mem]; Martin v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., (Civ. A.) 56 SW 1011; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. White, 22 Tex. Civ. A. 424, 55 SW 593; Campbell v. Alston, (Civ. A.) 23 SW 33. Va.-Alexandria, etc.. R. Co. V. Herndon, 87 Va. 193, 12 SE 289. Eng.-Thompson v. Belfast, etc., R. Co., Ir. R. 5 C. L. 517. [a] Car beyond platform.-(1) Where a train is drawn up at a station so as to leave some of the carriages beyond the platform, and a female passenger in one of such carriages waits for some time looking out for assistance, and is seen by the station master who is in the act of helping other passengers and gives her no caution, whereupon she alights and receives injuries, there is evidence of negligence on the part of the company to be submitted to the jury. Thompson v. Belfast, etc., R. Co., Ir. R. 5 C. L. 517. (2) A passenger who has been carried beyond the station platform has a right to rely on the assistance offered by the conductor and brakeman to aid her in son of the disturbed state of her mind and the fear of being carried beyond her destination she does not notice the distance of the car step from the ground, and they fail to assist her from the car without injury, it is the fault of the carrier. Foss v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 66 N. H. 256, 21 A 222, 49 AmSR 607, 11 LRA 367. [b] Crowded street car.-(1) It is the duty of a conductor who is on the rear platform when a passenger is alighting to see to it that the passenger has an opportunity to alight with safety, and it is his duty to see to it that passengers who are blocking the exit shall stand aside or even alight from the car temporarily; but it cannot ordinarily be said that the conductor is negligent in not being on the back platform prepared to render this assistance. Jacobs V. West End St. R. Co., 178 Mass. 116, 59 NE 639. (2) Where a street car stops for passengers to alight, if there is a rush of passengers to get off, crowding and jostling each other, it may be the duty of the conductor to use reasonable efforts to check it, to the end that passengers may not be injured or unnecessarily interfered with in alighting, but it is not his duty especially to assist any one of the well, able-bodied passengers, unless he sees that one to be in special danger, or in some measure unable to take care of himself. Jarmy v. Duluth St. R. Co., 55 Minn. 271, 56 NW 813. Care required as to jostling passengers generally see supra § 1333. [c] Where it is dark and the distance from the step to the platform is unusual, it is negligence not to assist the passenger, or at least to furnish him with light. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Davis, 157 Ky. 239, 162 SW 1124. 78. Ala.-Williams v. Louisville, etc.. R. Co., 150 Ala. 324, 43 S 576, 10 LRANS 413. Ga.-Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Rives, 137 Ga. 376, 73 SE 645, 38 LRANS 564 and note (blind passenger). Ind. Columbus, etc., R. Co. V. Powell, 40 Ind. 37; Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. Beals, 50 İnd. A. 450, 98 NE 453. Ky.-Louisville, etc.. R. Co. V. Dyer, 152 Ky. 264, 153 SW 194, 48 LRANS 816 and note; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cruse. 123 Ky. 463, 470, 96 SW 821, 29 KyL 914. 8 LRANS 299 and note, 13 AnnCas 593 [quot Cyc]. Minn.-Croom v. Chicago. etc., R. Co., 52 Minn. 296, 53 NW 1128, 38 Am SR 557, 18 LRA 602. Mo.- Walker v. Quincy, etc., R. Co., 178 SW 108; Layne v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 175 Mo. A. 34. 41, 157 SW 850 [cit Cyc]; Young v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 93 Mo. A. 267; Deming v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 80 Mo. A. 152. Nehr.-Scott v. Union Pac. R. Co., 99 Nebr. 97, 155 NW 217. N. C.- Morarity v. Durham Tract. Co., 154 N. C. 586, 70 SE 938. Okl.- St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Dobyns, 157 P 735; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Lee, 37 Okl. 545, 132 P 1072, 46 LRANS 357. S. C.-Horn v. Southern R. Co., 78 S. C. 67, 58 SE 963. Tenn. Memphis St. R. Co. v. Shaw, 110 Tenn. 467, 75 SW 713. Tex.-International, etc., R. Co. v. Williams, (Civ. A.) 183 SW 1185; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Garner, 52 Tex. Civ. A. 387, 115 SW 273. "Where a person is accepted as a passenger who is unable, through physical or mental disability, to care for himself, and this disability is known or made known to the carrier 83 at the time of acceptance," the carrier is bound to assist him. Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Carlisle, 2 Ala. A. 514, 517, 56 S 737 [cit Cyc]. of "By the weight of authority, also, it is held to be the duty of the carrier to assist a passenger in alighting if, obviously to its agents in charge, such passenger is then too sick or infirm or disabled to safely alight without aid." Central Georgia R. Co. v. Carlisle, supra. [a] Failure of passenger to ask assistance; instructions to jury-In an action for an injury received by a passenger in alighting from a railroad train, the court charged the jury that, taking into consideration the fact that the passenger did not ask for assistance, the jury should determine whether the failure to assist her was want of that measure of care which was due her as a passenger. It was held that the question was properly presented, and that the company was not entitled to a charge that it was not the duty of its employees to assist the passenger unless they knew that from disability or infirmity she was unable to get off readily without assistance. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 79 Tex. 78, 15 SW 264, 23 AmSR 308, 11 LRA 395. [b] Sufficiency of infirmity.—(1) The fact that a female passenger on a street car was fifty years of age, five feet tall, and weighed from one hundred and eighty-five to two hundred pounds, does not show as a matter of law that she was infirm or unable to alight from the car, either on account of her age, or weight, or because the step on the car was three feet from the street, so as to make it obligatory on the part of the employees operating the car to assist her. Indianapolis Tract., etc., Co. v. Pressell, 39 Ind. A. 472, 77 NE 357. (2) Although a female passenger was carrying a valise, a parasol, and a fan when she attempted to alight from the carrier's vehicle, her condition was not one of such obvious infirmity or disability that she was entitled to the assistance of the carrier's employees. Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Carlisle, 2 Ala. A. 514, 56 S 737. Care as to passengers under disability see supra §§ 1330, 1331. 79. Layne v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 175 Mo. A. 34, 157 SW 850. 80. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cruse, 123 Ky. 463, 96 SW 821, 29 KyL 914, 8 LRANS 299, 13 AnnCas 593; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Garner, 52 Tex. Civ. A. 387, 115 SW 273. 81. Appliances generally see infra §§ 1371-1379. 82. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hartung, 95 Ark. 220. 128 SW 1025; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Madden, 135 Ga. 205, 69 SE 165, 31 LRANS 813, 21 AnnCas 1077; Augusta-Aiken R., etc., Corp. v. Sibert, 12 Ga. A. 163, 76 SE 1044; Fern v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 250 Pa. 487, 95 A 590; McDougall v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 27 Ont. L. 369. 8 DomLR 271, 4 OntWN 363, 23 OntWR 364. [a] A carrier of passengers on mixed trains must furnish reasonably safe means of entering the cars. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hartung, 95 Ark. 220, 128 SW 1025. 83. Plummer v. Boston El. R. Co., 198 Mass. 499, 84 NE 849. [a] Movable platform.-Although a movable platform constructed by a railroad to enable passengers to board a train without danger of stepping into an open space was the most perfect device known and was perfectly constructed, the railroad would still be negligent as to the means 84 85 pliances furnished must be the safest known and provided passengers for entering re 84. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Wortham, 73 Tex. 25, 10 SW 741, 3 LRA 368 [dist St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Tittle, (Tex. Civ. A.) 115 SW 640]; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Dunbar, 57 Tex. Civ. A. 411, 122 SW 574; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Dunbar, 49 Tex. Civ. A. 12, 108 SW 500. But see Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Beezley, 56 Tex. Civ. A. 245, 120 SW 1136 (holding that an instruction that it was defendant's duty to provide for plaintiff the safest means practicable, the safest means known to assist passengers in alighting from trains, and if such means had not been provided, then defendant must personally assist plaintiff safely to the ground is faulty, as it is its duty to exercise only the degree of care of a very cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances, and the instruction is not cured by a subsequent instruction that, if defendant negligently failed to provide a safe means for alighting from its train as explained above, and its employees negligently failed to render the proper personal assistance, and plaintiff was injured thereby, the jury should find for plaintiff). 85. Johnston V. Cedar Rapids, etc., R. Co., 141 Iowa 114, 119 NW 286; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Tittle, (Tex. Civ. A.) 115 SW 640 [dist Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Wortham, 73 Tex. 25, 10 SW 741, 3 LRA 368]. Well known and approved machinery and appliances generally see infra 1374. 86. Young v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 93 Mo. A. 267; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Sherrill, 32 Tex. Civ. A. 116, 72 SW 429; Texas Midland R. Co. v. Frey, 25 Tex. Civ. A. 386, 61 SW 442. [a] Failure to furnish stool not negligence.-(1) Where the height of the last step of a car above the platform is not greater than that between the ground and the last step of vehicles in general use, and thousands of persons have made their exit unassisted from such car without the happening of a single accident to them, the carrier is not negligent in not furnishing a portable step for the use of passengers in leaving the car. Young v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 93 Mo. A. 267. (2) Where the distance from the step of a railroad passenger car to the platform provided for passengers to alight was not more than eighteen inches, the fact that the company did not provide a stool or box for passengers to use as an additional step in alighting to such platform was not such negligence as would authorize a recovery for injuries sustained by a fall of a passenger while alighting. Texas Midland R. Co. v. Frey, 25 Tex. Civ. A. 386, 61 SW 442. 87. Ind.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. Cheek, 152 Ind. 663, 53 NE 641. Iowa. Merryman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 135 Iowa 591, 113 NW 357. Ky. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Bell, 74 SW 700, 25 KyL 10. V. 87 N. Y.-Truesdall v. Erie R. Co., 114 App. Div. 34, 99 NYS 694. S. C.-Lancaster V. Southern R. Co., 92 S. C. 177, 75 SE 398. Tex.-Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Corse, 46 Tex. Civ. A. 60, 101 SW 522; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Southwick, (Civ. A.) 30 SW 592. [a] Illustrations.-(1) There is a breach of duty on the part of a carrier where its train is stopped at a station where there is no platform, and the distance from the ground to the first step is three feet, and the employees without furnishing a stool or other means to facilitate her entry invite a female passenger to board the train, assuring her that they will assist her to board the car in safety, which they fail to do, the only assistance given being by taking hold of one of her arms. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cheek, 152 Ind. 663, 53 NE 641. (2) A passenger alighting in the dark at a station, the platform of which was twenty-three inches below the lowest step of the car, may recover for injury from a fall caused by the absence of the stool which she had been accustomed to find in place to shorten the distance, and also in the absence of the porter whose duty it was to aid passengers in alighting. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Bell, 74 SW 700, 25 KyL 10. 88. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Wortham, 73 Tex. 25, 10 SW 741, 3 LRA 368; McDermott v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 82 Wis. 246, 52 NW 85. 89. Southern R. Co. v. Reeves, 116 Ga. 743, 42 SE 1015; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. White, 22 Tex. Civ. A. 424, 55 SW 593; Migge v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 75 Wash. 197, 134 P 815. [a] Illustrations.-(1) The fact that a passenger while attempting to alight from a train was injured because the step was a long distance from the ground and the stool used for the purpose of enabling her to alight was set on ground which was soft, and hence overturned when plaintiff stepped on it is sufficient to justify a verdict against the carrier. Southern R. Co. v. Reeves. 116 Ga. 743. 42 SE 1015. (2) The fact that a passenger's fall in alighting from a railroad car was due to the fact that the step box was placed too far under the car step, together with the failure of the trainmen helping her to take sufficient hold of her, was sufficient to support a finding on negligence of the railroad company. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. White, 22 Tex. Civ. A. 424, 55 SW 593. [b] Placing on rough and uneven ground. The placing of a footstool for the use of passengers in alighting on rough and uneven ground in such a manner as to be insecure and unsteady when stepped on is not the exercise of an adequate degree of care in furnishing passengers a reasonably safe means of alighting. Migge v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 75 Wash. 197, 134 P 815. 90. See supra §§ 1233, 1340. 91. Ala.-Birmingham, etc., R. Co. v. Norris, 4 Ala. A. 363, 59 S 66. Ark.-Dillahunty v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 119 Ark. 392, 178 SW 420; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hartung, 95 Ark. 220, 128 SW 1025. Ill-Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Flaharty, 96 Ill. A. 563. 91 92 Ind.-Indianapolis Southern R. Co. v. Wall, 54 Ind. A. 43, 101 NE 680. Ky.-Louisville, etc.. R. Co. V. Scalf, 155 Ky. 273, 159 SW 804; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Borders, 140 Ky. 548, 131 SW 388, 140 AmSR 396; Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Reeves, 80 SW 471, 25 KyL 2236. Mass.-Rand v. Boston El. R. Co., 198 Mass. 569, 84 NE 841. Mich.-Flint, etc., R. Co. v. Stark, 38 Mich. 714. Minn.-Blume v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 158 NW 418; Doran v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 128 Minn. 193, 150 NW 800. Mo.-Lehner v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 110 Mo. A. 215, 85 SW 110. N. Y.-Paulitsch V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 102 N. Y. 280, 6 NE 577. Okl.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Lee, 37 Okl. 545, 132 P 1072, 46 LRANS 357; Choctaw, etc., R. Co. v. Burgess, 21 Okl. 653, 97 P 271; Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Calhoun, 18 Okl. 75, 89 P 207, 11 AnnCas 681. Tex.-Citizens' R. Co. v. Farley, (Civ. A.) 136 SW 94: St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Anderson, 59 Tex. Civ. A. 300, 125 SW 628; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Gist, 31 Tex. Civ. A. 662, 73 SW 857; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Gray, (Civ. A.) 71 SW 316. Va.-Norfolk, etc., Terminal Co. v. Morris, 101 Va. 422, 44 SE 719. W. Va.-Normile v. Wheeling Tract. Co., 57 W. Va. 132, 49 SE 1030, 68 LRA 901. N. B.-Hall v. McFadden, 19 N. B. 340. [a] A reasonable length of time to board without haste or confusion should be given to a passenger before starting a train. Indianapolis Southern R. Co. v. Wall, 54 Ind. A. 43, 101 NE 680. [b] Notice to carrier.-Where the employees know or have notice that it is the purpose of a person to take passage on their train, and such person presents himself under such circumstances that he can reasonably be accepted as a passenger, it is the duty of the carrier to accept him as such, and give him a reasonable time and opportunity to get on the train, the passenger himself also being obliged to use reasonable care and expedition in that respect. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Flaharty, 96 Ill. A. 563: St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Anderson, 59 Tex. Civ. A. 300, 125 SW 628. Opportunity and time for boarding street car see infra § 1365. Passenger's right to be taken up see supra § 1233. 92. U. S.-Midland Valley R. Co. v. Page, 182 Fed. 125. Ala.-Birmingham, etc., R. Co. v. Norris, 4 Ala. A. 363, 59 S 66. Ark. Dillahunty v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 119 Ark. 392, 178 SW 420; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wright, 105 Ark. 269, 150 SW 706; St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Hartung, 95 Ark. 220, 128 SW 1025. Ga.-Poole v. Georgia R., etc., Co.. 89 Ga. 320, 15 SE 321. Ill-Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Drake, 33 11. A. 114. Iowa. Gannon v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 141 Iowa 37, 117 NW 966. Ky. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. V. Borders, 140 Ky. 548, 131 SW 388, |