Imágenes de páginas



damages for personal injuries alleged to have 0.

resulted from defendant's negligence. ReVICKSBURG, SHREVEPORT & PACIFIC versed. R. CO., Appt.,

The facts fully appear in the opinions.

Messrs. Wise & Herndon and F. P. (....LA. Ann.....)

Stubbs for appellant.

Messrs. Watkins & Watkins for appellee. *1. While it is the duty of a railroad

company to stop its train at the station to Fenner, J., delivered the opinion of the which it bas contracted to carry a passenger, and court: to lanı him safely and conveniently, yet the fact

On the 16th of October, 1886, plaintiff was that the company neglects this duty, and its train passes the station without stopping, does not jus- chased a licket from Bodeau Station to Doyline

a passenger on defendant's train, having purtify a passenger in jumping from the moving Station. The latter is a flag station, at which train, unless expressly or impliedly invited to do trains do not stop unless they have passengers so by the employés of the company.

If a signal is given from 2. The plaintiffs act in jumping from 10 put off or take on. the moving train was purely voluntary, un- the station that there are passengers to get on, influenced by any invitation expressed or intend the engineer blows iwo whistles lo siguify ined by the Company's employés, and excused by tention 10 stop. If there are passengers to put do impending danger or necessity of any kind, off, the conductor notifies the engineer by pullexcept his simple unwillingness to be carried be- ing the bell-rope, and the engineer, on receiving yond his destination; it was imprudent and dan- such signal, blows two whistles to signify the gerous, and his action for resulting injury is same intention. If tbere are no passengers to barred by his own contributory fault

take on or put off, only one wbisile is blown, (Watkins, J., dissents.)

and the train does not stop, but simply slackens

speed to a rate of eight or ten miles an hour in (December, 1889.)

passing the station, to enable the mails to be

thrown on and off. On this occasion the train PPEAL by defendant from a judgment of bad been compelled to come almost to a stop ster in favor of plaintiff in an action to recover

some oxen which were on the track. It then *Head notes by FENNER, J.

moved forward again, and the conductor,

NOTE-Duty of railroails to furnish safe stations and secure in his exit from the track and over its right platforms for use of passengers.

of way. Central R. Co. v. Thompson, 76 Ga. 770. As a general rule, railroad companies are bound Negligence regarding stations. See notes to New to keep in a safe condition all portions of their plat. York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Doane (Ind.) 1 L. R. A. forms and approaches thereto, where passengers 157; Kelly v. Manhattan R. Co. (N. Y.) 3 L. R. A. 74; taking passage on their cars would naturally or or. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Wortham (Tex.) 3 L. R. A. dinarily be likely to go. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Sue, 368; Parsons v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (N. 25 Neb. 772.

Y.) 3 L. R. A. 683; Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. V. The company must, for the safety of its passen- Lucas (Ind.) 6 L. R. A. 193. gers, properly light its platform within a reasonable time before the arrival and departure of trains. Raüroads; reasonable rules for carriage of passen Grimes 1. Pennsylvania Co. 36 Fed. Rep. 72.

gers. Where a railroad train stops at a place of peril in Railroad companies have the power to make reaa dark night, after notice bas been given tbat the sonable rules and regulations as to the manner of next stopping place would be at a certain station, performing their duties as public carriers; that is the safety of the passengers requires that some no- to say, as to the hourand schedule time for starting tice or warning should be given them to retain thoir and running their trains, and as to the places on the seats. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. v. Edelstein (Pa.) 23 route at which particular trains shall stop in transit. W. N. C. 342: Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. McCor. Duling v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. 5 Cent. Rep. mick, 124 Pa. 427.

571, 66 Md. 120. A railroad company leaving unguarded a hole in It is the duty of a passenger to inquire before em. a passageway at its station, likely to be used by per- barking on a train whether it will stop at the siasons going to and from its cars, is negligent. Green tion of his destination, and if he does so, and is v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 36 Fed. Rep. 66.

misled by an agent authorized to speak for the comWhere a platform maintained jointly by two rail- pany, he has his action against the company for the road companies for the purpose of enabling pa-sen-misdirection, but not for the refusal of the con. gers to pass from the depot of one of the companies ductor to stop there, if it be a station at which the to that of the other is negligently left in an unsafe train is forbidden to stop by the regulations of the condition, both coinpanies are liable to a puesenger company. St. Louis, I. M. & 8. R. Co. v. Atchison, for injuries sustained while passing over such plat- 47 Ark. 74. form. Lucas v. Pennsylvania Co. (Ind.) 21 N. E. A passenger having purchased a ticket at a reRep. 972.

duced rate, good only on trains advertised to stop It is the duty of a railroad company so to fix its at certain stations, has no right thereunder to stop station or depot that a passenger who gets off at the a train at a station not advertised; but if he sig. depot or place to alight may do so without danger; naled the train at a station where such train was and it is also its duty to fix such a way of exit from obliged to stop when signaled, the company bethe depot over its right of way that a passenger came liable to exemplary damages. Wilson v. New may go away from the place at wbicb be is invited Orleans & N. E. R. CO. 63 Miss. 352. to get on and off, without danger to life or limb; Where an intending passenger purchased a ticket but it is not the company's duty to see bim safe and at the company's office when a train was about de7 L, R. A.

knowing he had this passenger to put off, at- | ployé of the Company. The conductor says tempted to signal the engineer with the bell. I thai, having failed to give the signal, he went rope, but, owing to some tangle or vii-arrange through the train, after pissing ibe station, 10 zient, could not do so, consequently the two liud plaintiff, iniending to lack the train up to wbisiles were pot blown. The conductor, the the station, and put hini off, but failed to find engineer and the porter all agree on this point, him, and supposed be had gotten off when the and there is no contradictory statement. The train had stopped on account of the oxen on porter odly calls out flag-stations when tbere the track. are passengers to put off and the signal to stop Under these facts, the fault of the Company, is blown. The plaintiff testifies tbat the porter in not stopping its train, candot be disputed. did pass through the car, and call out Doyline It was bound, under its contract, to stop. and Station, but this the porter positively denies, safely discharge its passenger. But did its and, considering the uncontradicted testimony negligent failure to discharge this duty justify that no sigual to stop was given, the fact is of tbe plaintiff in jumping off the moving train, little importance. The consequence was that or absolve him from the charge of contributory the train passed by the station, only slacking degligence, which, under the seliled jurispru. its speed, as customary, but not stopping. dence of ibis court, is a bar to his recovery?

The plaintiff baviog several times made this We consider the law to be settled by tbe oversame trip, and knowing bis station, went out whelming weight of authority that while a on the platform of the car for the purpose of railroad company is bound to stop its train at getting off. He went down on the steps of the the station to which it has contracted to carry car, and, after passing a little beyond the sta. a passenger, and to land bim safely and contion platform, seeing that the car did pot stop: veniently, the fact that the train is about to and, as he says, supposing that it was intended pass such a station without stopping does not that be should get off, and that he could do so justify the passenger in jumping off the movwith safety, he stepped off while the train was ing train, unless expressly or impliedly invited moving; and he says that, as he was in the act to do so by the Company. of doing so, the train accelerated its motion, A leading case on the subject, wbich we segiving a sudden jerk, which threw him, and lect from a multitude of authorities, pot only broke bis apkle, occasioning the injuries for on account of the great lawyer who delivered which bis present action in damages is brougbt. it (Judge Black), but also because it bas been He says that, just before be stepped off, some expressly quoted and affirmed by this court, one called to him, “Is not this your station?” lays down the principle, in a state of facts which acted in determining him to step off; strikingly similar to those before us, as follows: but the evidence leaves no doubt that the per- The plaintiff below was a passenger in de son who asked the question was not any em-I fendant's cars from Philadelphia to Morgan's

parting in the direction he wished to go, and after change the arrangement and stop at an unusual he boarded the train he learned that it would not place. Atchison, T. & 8. F. R. Co. v Gants, 38 Kan. stop at the station for which he had purchased the 608. ticket, he has no redress against the company. A freight train accustomed to discharge passen. Duling v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. supra. gers away from its platform, or where it is imprac

A railroad company, having sold a ticket to a ticable to reach it, may require them to leave at point on its road, including a return trip, was bound some convenient place. New York, C. & St. L. R. to stop at the station and bring the passenger back, Co. v. Doane, 1 L. R. A. 157, 15 West. Rep. 465, 115 upon the usual signal, which had been recognized Ind. 435. by the company, being given. Freeman v. Detroit, Where a passenger-freight train stopped at an inM. & M. R. Co 9 West. Rep. 117, 65 Mich. 577. convenient place, a female passenger was justified

in supposing it would stop at che platform, and, her Lial»lity for injury to passenger, alighting from presence being discovered as the train passed the train.

station, it was negligence in the company not reWhere the conductor has reason to believe that turning to the station or assisting ber to alight from any passenger, on reaching the station of his desti. the train when it stopped, or to reach the station in nation, has not alighted, and is dilatory in the act safety. Ibid. of alighting, and he starts his train without exam. A female passenger required to alight from ination or inquiry, and such passenger is in the act freigbt train, beyond the station, was not negligent of aligbting when the train is started, and is there. in not discovering gates into a private inclosure by injured, the company will be liable. Sherwood, through which the station might be reached by an J., dissents, on the ground that there was evidence unmarked route; and the company is liable for in. to show the conductor that plaintiff was not injuries suffered by her falling while attempting to danger. Strauss v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co. cross a cattle pit. lbido 6 West. Rep. 433, 86 Mo 421.

Where, before a passenger had safely alighted at | Duty of carrier to stop train to alloro passenger to a station, the conductor signaled the train to start,

alight. and jerked the passenger to the ground, injuring It is the duty of the servants and employés on a bim, the carrier is liable. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. passenger train to stop the train long enough for a Co. v. Wood, 12 West. Rep. 313, 113 Ind. 514.

passenger, by the exercise of ordinary care and diliWhen a conductor is merely asked how long a gence, considering age, sex and physical condition, train will stop at a certain station, and tells the pas- to alight from the train safely before it is started senger, he is not presumed to know that the latter or suffered to start. Hickman v. Missouri Pac. R. desires to alight on business, and does not thereby Co. 8 West. Rep. 564, 91 Mo, 433; Central R. Co. v. assume any obligation to watch the movements of Whitehead, 74 Ga. 441; Strause v. Kansas City, St. J. the passenger or delay the train on bis account. & C. B. R. Co. 5 West. Rep. 433, 86 MW. 421. Missouri Pac. R. Co. c. Foreman, 73 Tex. 311.

A sufficient time to permit a passenger to get off He is not bound at his peril to ascertain from any the train in safety means time to alight safely in mere stranger of the existence of an agreement to the use of reasonable diligence and care, having re


Corner. The train should have stopped at the the constant habit of the company to stop at latter place, but some defect in the bell-rope that place, the leap not being made to avoid an prevented the conductor from making the imminent impen(ling peril, produced by the proper signal to the engineer, who therefore misconduct of defendants, but to avoid being went past, though at a speed somewhat slack- carried beyond her destination, she was herself ened on account of the switches which were guilty of such imprudence as relieves the com. there to be crossed. The plaintiff, seeing him- pany from the consequences of tbe want of self about to be carried on, jumped from the caution on the part of their servants; for in such platform of the car, and was seriously burt in a case the accident may be attributed to tbe the foot. . . . Persons to whom the manage- fault of both parties, wbich would destroy ment of a railroad is intrusted are bound to ex- plaintiff's right to recover.” And then the ercise the strictest vigilance. They must carry court quotes, with approval, the above decision the passengers to their respective places of dess of the Pennsylvania court. Dainont v. New tination, and set them down safely, if human Orleans & C. R. Co. 9 La. Ann. 441. care and foresight can do ii, ... But they are In a very recent case we referred to this answerable only for the direct and immeiliate priuciple as an evident one, saying: "Now, consequences of errors committed by them- supposing ibat any passenger on a regular train selves. They are not insurers against the perils should labor under a similar mistake in believe to wbich a passenger may expose himself by bis ing, for iostance, that the train was passing by own rashness and folly. . . . From these prin- the station to which he was destined, and, fearciples it follows very clearly that if a passenger ing that he might be carried beyond the same, is negligently carried beyond bis station, wbere should jump out as tbe train was pulling out of be ... bad a right to be let off, he can recover the station, and be injured by falling, could the compensation for the inconvenience, the loss of company be held liable for injuries thus retime and the labor of traveling back, because ceived? Evidently not." Reary v. Louisville, these are the direct consequences of the wrong N. 0. & T. R. Co. 40 La. Ann. 32. done to bim. B'it, if he is foolbardy enough In the muliitude of adjudications and judito jump off without waiting for the train to cial expressions on this subject, by numerous stop, he does it at his own risk, because this is courts, there wave nalurally arisen varieties and gross imprudence, for which be can blame conflicts of opinions, and decisions, bostile, or pobody but himself." Pennsylvania R. Co. v. apparently bosuile, to each other, are quoted on Aspell, 23 Pa. 147.

eitber side; but the weigbt of authority unThis court long ago laid down the like doc- doubtedly sustains the views above expressed, trine in the following language: “If the and, at all events, -wbat more pearly concerns daugbter of plaintiff voluntarily jumped from us. —they have been adopted in the jurispruthe cars when in motion, even though it was dence of Louisiana.

gard to all the circumstances. Pennsylvania R. Co. at night in a strange city. Galveston, H. & H. R. v. Lyons (Pa.) 25 W. N. C. 6.

C), v. Crispi, 73 Tex. 236. A conductor bas no right to assume, because he Where a train passes the station to which the pasdoes not sce a passenger in the coach on looking senger was entitled to be carried, without stopping into it, that he has leaped out in the dark from the a sufficient time for him to get off, the carrier is moving train; but it is his duty to know that he has liable in damages. The fact that the train carried a passenger for a station, to have the station an- freight as well as passengers makes no difference. nounced and to stop the train. Louisville, N. O. & White Water Valley R. Co. v. Butler, 12 West. Rep. T. R. Co. v. Mask, 64 Miss. 738.

207, 112 Ind. 598.

A railroad company admitting passengers to a Passenger carried beyond his destination.

freight train incurs the same liability to transport A passenger carried beyond his station may re- them safely as if on a passenger train. New York, cover for an injury sustained by falling through a C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Doane, 1 L. R. A. 157, 15 Westo trestle work. Whether he consented to leave the Rep. 465, 115 Ind. 435. train at that point, so as to waive his right, is a If a passenger-freight train is stopped near a staquestion for the jury. Winkler v. St. Louis, I. M. tion, and the passengers rightfully understand they & S. R. Co. 3 West. Rep. 433, 21 Mo. App. 99.

are to leave the train, the company is liable for the The complaint in an action for carrying a passen- injuries they may sustaip in so doing, to the same ger beyond his station should aver that under the extent and upon the same ground as if suffered rules of the company the train should have stopped from the defectiveness of its own premises. Ivica at the station Chicago, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Bills, 1 West. Rep. 849, 104 Ind. 13.

Contributory negligence defeats right of action. The plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for An administrator cannot recover for the death of bis trouble and inconvenience in getting back to his decedent, caused by negligence of a railroad bis destination. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. v. i company, unless deceased was in the exercise of Lockbart, 79 Ala. 315.

due care for his own safety, Chicago & A. R. Co. A railroad company which sells a ticket to a point v. Fietsam, 12 West. Rep. 844, 123 11!. 518. beyond its line is liable for injuries to the passenger An adult, if guilty of any negligence, however caused by the negligence of those in charge of the slight, contributing directly to produce the injury train and car at a point beyond its own line to to bimself, cannot recover. Dowling v. Allen, 5 which the passenger was carried without change of West. Rep. 370, 88 Mo. 293; Monongahela City v. cars. Chollette v. Omaha & R. V. R. Co. (Neb.) 4 Fischer, 2 Cent. Rep. 79, 111 Pa. 9; Western Union L. R. A. 135.

Teleg. Co. v. McDaniel, 1 West. Rep. 274, 103 Ind. A woman with an infant, wrongfully carried by 294; Cook v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 1 West. Rep. 452, a train beyond her destination, and who insists on 19 Mo. App. 329. being put off, in consequence of which she bas to A street railway is not linble for a personal inwalk back a mile, is not thereby prevented from jury when it appears that, when plaintiff signaled recovering damages, where she was without money, the conductor to stop the car, i he latter rang the and, if she had gone on, would have been left late bell for that purpose, and the car immediately beThe question is, then, whether the plaintiff, tary, uninfluenced by any invitation expressed in jumping off the moving train, acted upon the or intended by the employés of the Company, express or implied invitation of the Company. and excused by no impending danger or peresThe evidence conclusively negatives any ex sity of any kind, except his mere unwillingness press invitation on the part of any employé of to be carried beyond bis station. It was imthe Company. It is equally clear that the offi- prudent and dangerous, and bis action for the cers in charge of the train never intended or resulting injury is clearly barrel by bis own expected ibat plaintiff should get off, and cer contributory fault. It is therefore ordered and tainly did not slack up for the purpose of letting decreed that the verdict and judgment appealed him get off. They acted precisely as they from be annulled and set aside, and that there be would bave done had ibere been no passengers judgment in favor of defendant rejecting the deto take on or put off; for the engineer bad no mand, at plaintiff's costs in both courts. signal to that effect, therefore did not know that there was a passenger to put off, and only Watkins, J., dissenting: slackened the speed, as was his duty on all oc- Plaintiff sued the Railroad Company for casions, simply to allow the exchange of mails. $10,000 damages for injuries he received in Is it possible to construe this as implying an alighting from one of its iraius while in motion, invitation? If so, such an invitation is given to on wbich he was a passenger, it having passed everyone who wants to get off the train when the station to which be was ticketed without ever it passes such a station.

making a full stop, only slowing up to permit The testimony is contlicting as to the rate of an exchange of mails. There was a verdict of speed at wbicli the tr«in passed tbe station. a jury in his favor, which this court bas set Nothing can be more uncertain than such esti- j aside, and the substance of the majoritv opinion mates, especially when made by unskilled ob- is that the act of the plaintiff was voluniary, and

The natural and probable conclusion without ivvitation on the part of the officers from the circumstances is that the train only and agents of the Railroad Company; and made the usual slacking of speed for exchang- while the Company was, primarily, guilty of ing the mails There was no reason why the negligence in failing to carry cut its contract of engineer should bave acted otherwise. Plain. safe carriage, the plaintiff was guilty of contiff thinks he would bave landed safely but for tributory negligence. tbe acceleration of speed wbich took place as The opinion puts the proposition thus: be was in the act of jumping. But ibis accel: “The question is, then, whether the plaintiff, eration only took place after the train had in jumping off the moving train, acied upon the passed the platform, and after the mails had express or implied invitation of the Company;' been excbanged, which was the usual and nat. and, answering that question, i he opinion says: ural course. If plaintiff chose to infer an invi- “The evidence conclusively negatives any extation 10 jump oil from these customary acts of press invitation on the part of any employé of the Company, it was a rasb conclusion. One ihe Company. It is equally clear that the offi. of his own witnesses testilles that he never, at cers in charge of the train never intended or any other time, saw a person jump from a train expected bat he should get off.”. These dic'a moving as fast as that one was, although he are the sole foundation of the opinion, and the says it was moving slowly. That plaintiff's legal proposition announced resis exclusively action was imprudent is shown by the result, upon Damont v. New Orleans & C. R. CO.9 Lå. and, as we think, by all the circumstances. Ann. 411;

Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Aspell, 23 Pa. His own evidevce shows that be hesitated about 147, and Reary v. Louisville, N.O. & T. R. Co. attempting the jump, and was only determined 40 La. And. 32. by the question of a third person, and the Let us see what is their purport, and wbat are thought that otherwise be would be carried the principles they announce, and whether they beyond bis station. His act was purely volun. I are a proper foundation for the opinion. In


gan to slow down, and that plaintiff', without wait- jured, he cannot recover for the injury. Pennsyl. ing for the car to stop, stepped from the car while vania R. Co. v. Lyons (Pa.) 25 W. N. C. 6. It was in motion. Harmon v. Washington & G. R. A passeoger who is unnecessarily and improperly Co. D. CJ 8 Cent. Rep. 738.

upon the platform of a railroad car, knowing that One who jumps from a train moving twenty-five the train is about to start, and who is thrown down miles an hour, when not invited or ordered to do so and injured by the starting of the engine with no by the agents of the railroad company, or not to unusual or unnecessary jerk, cannot recover thereavoid some threatened peril, is guilty of contribu- for. Torrey v. Boston & A. R. Co.7 New Eng. Rep. tory negligence barring a recovery for injuries 148, 147 Mass. 412. thereby received. Jarrett v. Atlanta & W. B. R. The fact that he was at the time looking for some Co. (Ga.) 9 S. E. Rep, 681.

one does not excuse him in case he was injured. Where a person is killed or injured by attempting Ibid. to jump from a railroad train while it is crossing a A passenger carried beyond her stopping place, public street, the negligence of the railroad com- who takes the risk of getting off while the train is pany in failing to ring its locomotive bell wh le in motion, must take the consequences, and cannot crossing the street, as required by law, while it is recover against the railroad company for injuries clearly negligence, does not contribute to the in- thereby sustained. Watson v. Georgia Pac. R. Co. Jurv; and of such failure plaintiff cannot com- 81 Ga. 476. plain; and such failure is therefore no cause for a A man wbo attempted, while a street-car was in recovery by one so injured. Central R. Co. v. Har- motion, to step off from the front of the car with a ris, 76 Ga. 501.

keg ot lead in bis hands, is guilty of negligence Where sufficient time was allowed the passenger which will prevent his recovering for injuries which to get off, but he did not do so, and remained on the he would not have received if he had remained on train till it started, when he jumped off and was in the steps, although there was negligence on the the Damont Case none of the facts are stated. I respectfully submit that this record presents no The only question discussed was the correctness such case. of the charge of the judge a quo to the jury, and Nor is the case of Reary v. Louisville, N. 0. the case was remanded for a new trial. Tbe & I. R. Co. at all applicable, because it was only cases cited therein as authority were one of a little girl who received injuries in Lesseps v. Pontchartrain R. Co. 17 La. 362, and jumping from a train of cars while iv motion. Fleytas V. Pontchartrain R. (0.18 La. 339. But she was not a passenger. The train was Those two cases in volved claims for damages in the depot-yard being uncoupled at the time, sustained by the owners of slaves who bad been and the conductor bad gode home. The par. killed, one in attempting to cross a railroad agraph quoted from that case in the opinion track, and the other wbile lying on the track, was bypothetically stated, merely for the pureiiber drunk or asleep. The mere citation of pose of an illustration, and has no weight, as a those cases as authority for the decision of that part of that decision. Without antagonizing case shows how imperfectly understood were the opinion on its statement of facts, I propose the ques'ions involved, in 1854, when that to make an independent one. opinion was rendered; for, of course, there As a witness, the plaintiff says that, when being between the owners of the slaves and the within 200 yards of the station of bis de pariure, railroad companies do contractual relations there was a yoke of oxen on the track, and the whatever, 'be former were primarily guilty of speed of the train was slackened until tbey gross negligence, and the laiter were without were frightened off. Afterwards the speed was fault. But the opinion quotes with approval increased a little, the whistle blown, and it was the paragraph from Pennsylvania R. Co. v. again reduced, and slowly moved by the depot Aspell, which was quoted in the Damont Case, platform, while tbe mail was being exchanged. bui in that extract no part of the facts of that when the train passed the depot be thought it case is recited. They are brought forward in was running slowly enough for a man lo get off Wood's Railway Law, at pages 1130 and 1132, without danger. The only thing ibat prevent.' and we quote i hem to show how very inappli- ed him g tting off safely was that the train cable to this case tbey are. They are as follows, gave a jerk forward as he got off. The traiu viz.: “Whilst the train was in motion, the was moving all the time, but very slowly. The plaintiff leaped from the car, though warned by place where he attempted to alight was a better ibe conductor and brakeman not to do so, and place to get off than that where p rsons usual. informed him that the train would be stopped ly get off. The ground was smoother. The and backed to the station. ... If he bad train was running at less than one half its heeded item, be would bave been safely let usual speed. When he was passing the place down, at the place be desired to stop ai, in less where the ties, etc., were lying, be ibougbt it tban a minute and a half. Instead of this, he was not a safe place to get off. As he hurriedtook a leap which promised him nothing but ly made up his mind, the train passed an open death; for it was made in the darkpess of mid- place, and be got off there, because he thought night, against a wood-pile close to the track, it was better ground, and he could get off there and from a car going probably at the full rate without getting burt. Using bis own language, of ten miles an hour."

he says: “Just at the moment that I got off, On this state of facts botb the Aspell and the train made a jerk. I was in the act of Damont Cases depend. On such a state of leaving the steps, when the jerk came. I had facts, of course, the plaintiffs were held 10 dave let go the railing, and had siarted to step in the been guilty of gross negligence, and the rail. direction of the way the train was going, and road companies without fault. But wby one foot had left the steps, and the other (was) should those decisions be cited in this case as still on the steps, and (in the act of] leaving, sustaining the doctrine of contributory negli: when the jerk came." This occurrence bapgence? I confess I cannot understand, for I pened at 10 o'clock A, M.

part of the carrier. Ricketts v. Birmingham Street A company is responsible for injuries resulting R. Co. 85 Ala. 600.

from acts done under the direction of the con.

ductor. Bellman v. New York Cent. & H.R. R. Co. Erception to rule of contributory negligence.

42 Hun, 130. The rule that it is negligence in a passenger to Negligence cannot be imputed to a passenger, alJump from a moving train is subject to exceptions, though a woman advanced in pregnancy jumped -as, when the passenger is placed in peril by the from a car to the ground in obedience to an instrucdefault or negligence of the company, or when he tion from the conductor, the train having been leaves the train, while it is in motion, by the direc- stopped at a place other than the usual platform. tion of the company's agents. Pennsylvania R. Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Leapley, 4 Cent. Rep. 253, Co. v. Lyons (Pa.) 25 W. N. C. 6.

C5 Md. 571. Where a boy sixteen years of age leaped from a Where a train stops at a station and starts again train, upon which he was a trespasser, at a show of before a passenger can aligbt, an attempt by him force displayed by the conductor, it was held that to leave it while it is moving, made under the conthe company was liable. Indianapolis, P. & C. R. ductor's direction, is not, as a matter of law, couCo. v. Pitzer. 4 West. Rep. 257, 109 Ind. 179.

tributory negligence which will bar a recovery for A street-car passenger who has signaled for the injuries sustained in doing so. St. Louis, I. M. & S. car to stop so he may alight is not guilty of con- R. Co. v. Person, 49 Ark. 182. tributory negligence in going upon the step of the Where the conductor announces the name of the car when it slows up, as he has a right to expect station after the train stops, the announcement is that it will stop; and where it starts up again with equivalent to an invitation to alight; and if passena jerk before stopping, and he is thrown off, the gers are deceived by such an announcement, and accident is not the result of contributory negli- are consequently injured, the railroad company gence. Harmon v. Washington & G. R. Co. (D. C.) will be responsible. Central R. Co. v. Thompson 17 Wash. L. Rep. 128

76 Ga. 770.

« AnteriorContinuar »