passengers, that the way for passage was as safe as usual when cars are coupled. The plaintiff had on occasions before taken passage on trains running on the time of this one, and had the opportunity of seeing that the platforms of connected cars. were not separated by a space at all dangerous to passage. In fact, it was about one inch in width when the cars were coupled. Mr. Russell testified that, as the plaintiff stepped forward, the cars separated, and she went down between them. There was other evidence that they separated immediately after the contact At all events, her attention was not called to it, and she says no warning to keep back was heard by her, and her brother and brother-in-law say they heard none. The evidence that warning was given came from the employes whose duty it was to give it. The severance of the cars after they came together, and the movement of the plaintiff with others to cross into the other car, evidently occupied but a very short space of time. The plaintiff's excuse for proceeding as she did was in the announcement, "All aboard," which must now be assumed to have been given by an employe of the defendant. It may be inferred that relying upon that, and seeing others pass, she supposed that it could be done in safety; and the jury were permitted to conclude that the plaintiff relied upon those evidences that the cars were coupled together, and was justified in proceeding as she did to pass from the one into the other car without any apprehension of danger from the cause which produced it. Tousey v. Roberts, 114 N. Y. 312; Brassell v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 84 N. Y. 241, 3 Am. & Eng R. Cas. 380.

The test of contributory negligence or want of due care is not always found in the failure to exercise the best judgment, or to use the wisest precaution. Some allowance may be made for the influences which ordinarily govern human action; and what would under some circumstances be a want of reasonable care might not be such under others. McIntyre 7. New York Cent. R. Co., 37 N. Y. 287; Lowery v. Manhattan R. Co., 99 N. Y. 158, 23 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 276; Sherry 7. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 104 N. Y. 652. This question of negligence in the present case was for the jury, and therefore the motion to dismiss the complaint was properly denied. And there was no error in the refusal of the court to charge, as requested, that the plaintiff was bound to wait in the car, where she was in a safe place, until the coupling was complete. The consideration of this proposition is embraced in what has already been said. The exercise of due care required her to wait until she was induced by what an employe announced, and by it was permitted to suppose,

and did believe, that the cars were so coupled. The court had charged the jury quite fully upon that subject, and the question was submitted to them whether the plaintiff was chargeable in any respect with negligence in proceeding when and as she did to pass from the car in which she was to the other one; and they were instructed that, if the plaintiff was not entirely free from negligence, she could not recover. The case was a close one, but the facts essential to a recovery by the plaintiff were not without evidence for their support. There seems to have been no error in any of the rulings to which exceptions were taken. The judgment should be affirmed. All concur.

Injury to Passenger--Contributory Negligence in Passing from one Coach to Another. A woman, who was lame, entered a railroad train, as it stopped at a station, by the front platform of the rear car, and, perceiving that car to be full, proceeded to go into the car next forward. The platforms were about six inches apart, and the intervening buffers, the tops of which were nearly level with the platforms, were in contact as the train stood still. The train, upon which she had often travelled, made a shorter stop than usual at that station, and started with a jerk, just as, without looking down, she was about to step from one car to the other. She stepped upon the buffers as they separated with the movement of the train, and her foot slipped between them and was injured. Held, that she was guilty of contributory negligence, and could not recover against the railroad company for her injuries. Snowden v. Boston & M. R. Co., 151 Mass. 220.

In an action by a passenger for personal injuries, it was shown by the evidence that plaintiff started into another car to get water while the train was moving slowly, but stopped a minute on the platform to talk, and, just as he was passing on, the coupling-pin broke, and the cars parted, throwing him off. Held, that it was error to direct a nonsuit on the ground that plaintiff was not in the exercise of ordinary care. Cottchett v. Savannah & T. R. Co., Ga. Sup. Ct., March 17, 1890.

In McDaniel v. Highland Ave. & B. R. Co., Ala. Sup. Ct., June 11, 1890, it appeared that the plaintiff was one of the defendant company's switchmen "off duty," who had boarded one of defendant's trains of his own accord. There being no water in the coach, he went to the engine to get some. In attempting to pass from the tender to the platform of the coach he grasped the brake, which was loose, and as he did so the engineer suddenly turned on the air brakes. The suddenness of the jerk and turning of the brake caused him to fall between the engine and the car. He knew that, there

being no steps to the engine, it was necessary to pass over the iron railing to enter the coach. The train was on a sharp curve, and approaching the switch at a rapid rate of speed. Held, that the plaintiff had recklessly and needlessly exposed himself to an obvious danger, and was guilty of such contributory negligence that he could not recover.

Contributory Negligence of Passenger Alighting from Elevated Railroad Train Hand Injured by Door.-In Baker 2. Manhattan R. Co., 118 N. Y 533, the plaintiff testified that she was a passenger on an elevated railroad train of the defendant company. After the train had arrived at the station where she wished to alight, and had stopped, she arose from her seat, went to the door, opened it, and stood upon the sill of the door in the doorway, waiting for the guard to open the gates to the platform. The guard was not at that time upon the platform of the car, but soon came running through the for

ward car in front of her. He opened the gate and pulled the strap signaling the train to start at the same instant. The train did start before the plaintiff had time to leave the doorway, and in starting caused her to pitch forward, and to prevent herself from falling she put her hand up by the side of the door. The motion of the car caused the door to swing to upon one of the fingers of her hand, injuring it. Held, that a verdict of the jury that the defendant was chargeable with negligence was justified by the plaintiff's evidence. Held, also, that the question of plaintiff's contributory negligence was for the jury.

Contributory Negligence of Passenger Crossing Track at Station.-A person desiring to take a train at a flag station is not negligent as a matter of law if on hearing his train approaching the station, and seeing no train coming in the opposite direction, he goes diagonally across the first track, which was planked, towards his train, which has nearly stopped, and is still when he reaches his car, though a witness who was called by the plaintiff, testifies that, before the passenger train stopped, the freight, which struck plaintiff, was passing. But if it appears that the plaintiff knew, or might by the use of his senses have known, that the freight train was coming, and crossed in front of it to a dangerous position, through fear that his train coming on the next track might not wait, he cannot recover Kohler v. Pennsylvania R. Co., Pa. Sup. Ct., May 26, 1890.

MALCOLM

V.

RICHMOND & DANVILLE R. Co.

(North Carolina Supreme Court, March 31, 1890.)

Injury to Passenger-Signal for Starting Train-Standing on PlatformContributory Negligence.-Plaintiff was a passenger on a freight train of defendants, having a passenger coach attached. While the train was taking on wood at a wood station, plaintiff stood on the rear platform of the coach, without holding to anything, until the train started with such a jerk that he was thrown to the ground and injured. The negligence attributed to the defendant was that the train started without any signal. Held, (a) that the company was under no duty as to its passengers to give signals at such place; (b) that the plaintiff was guilty of such contributory negligence as precluded a recovery.

APPEAL from Superior Court, Guilford County.

The plaintiff was a passenger on the defendant's freight train from Winston to Greensborough. A passenger coach was attached to the train, and there was ample room in the same for the accommodation of all the passengers. While the train was taking in wood at a wood station, the plaintiff went on the rear platform of the coach, and stood there, without holding to anything, until the train started" with such a jerk as to throw him off violently on the rails," by reason of which he was injured. The negligence attributed to the defendant is that the train was started without any signal or other notice. J. T. Morehead, for appellant.

D. Schenck, for appellee.

signal.

SHEPHERD, J.-Whatever may be the duty which the law imposes upon railroad companies in respect to giving signals when its trains are approaching crossings and regDuty to give ular stations, it is clear that it has no application to the case before us. The supreme court of Alabama, in Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Hawk, 72 Ala. 112, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 194, in construing statutes requiring such signals to be given, says: "These precautions, so far as applicable to persons, are intended obviously, for the benefit of the travelling public, and others who have a right to be warned of approaching trains, for their personal protection against injury. Passengers who are on the trains are not ordinarily included in the letter or spirit of the statute. They do not need such signals of warning for their protection; and they cannot, therefore, be construed to be entitled to them. Thirteenth, etc. St. Pass. R. Co. v. Boudrou, 92 Pa. St. 475, 2 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 30. The place of this accident was a mere wood station, and the train only stopped there for the purpose of taking on wood. The defendant was under no duty to give signals at such a place, except, perhaps, for the purpose of warning its employes; and they alone could take advantage of any omission in this respect.

Contributory

Apart from this, however, we are of the opinion that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. "Railroad companies are only bound to exercise due care that negligence. a passenger is not injured through their fault, and are not required to exercise such a supervision over him as absolutely prevents his being injured by his own fault. In other words, if a passenger voluntarily puts himself in a dangerous position, he cannot claim indemnity from the company." 2 Wood, Ry. Law, § 303. "The company, as held in some of the cases above cited, cannot be expected to treat its passengers as children, or to put them under restraint. Passengers must take the responsibility of informing themselves concerning the every day incidents of railway travelling, and the company could not do business on any other basis." Mitchell v. Chicago & G. T. R. Co., 51 Mich. 236, 12 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 163. The plaintiff must have been aware of the dangerous position in which he placed himself. He was warned of this danger by the regulation of the defendant forbidding passengers to ride upon platforms. He must have known of the sudden startings and jolting peculiar to freight trains; and he must, also, have known, when he placed himself upon the platform, that the train was likely to start at any moment. Notwithstanding all this, he leaves his seat in the coach, and puts himself in this dangerous position, without even taking the simple precaution of supporting himself by

holding to the railing, or anything else. That no recovery can be had under such circumstances is, it seems to us, too plain for further discussion. See Wood, Ry. Law, supra, and the notes. There was no error in the ruling of the court. Affirmed.

Contributory Negligence of Passenger in Standing on Car Platform.-See Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Bisch (Ind.), 41 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 89, note 92; Central R. & B. Co. v. Miles (Ala.), 41 Id. 149; Dewire v. Boston & M. R. Co. (Mass.), 37 Id. 57, note 60.

STIMSON

v.

MILWAUKEE, LAKE SHORE & WESTERN R. Co.

(75 Wis. 381.)

Injury to Passenger-Obstruction in Aisle of Car.The plaintiff while walking down the aisle of a car of one of defendant's passenger trains, carrying a satchel in her hand and looking for a seat, stumbled over two satchels in the aisle and fell and was injured. None of the defendant's employes were in the car at the time. The car was lighted so that a person could, by looking, see any obstructions in the aisle. Held, that the evidence showed no negligence on the part of the defendant, and that a nonsuit was properly granted.

Same Presumption of Negligence.-The mere fact that the aisle of a passenger car is obstructed by the personal baggage of some passenger, over which another passenger stumbles and is injured, does not of itself raise a presumption of negligence on the part of the company.

APPEAL from Outagamie County Circuit Court.
J. W. Meiklejohn and John Goodland, for appellant.
Alfed L. Cary, for respondent.

TAYLOR, J.-This action was brought by the appellant to recover damages for a personal injury she received while entering a passenger car of the company. The Case stated. facts are few, and very simple. On the 24th of

December, 1887, a passenger train of the company made its usual stop at New London, a station on its road. The plaintiff purchased a ticket from that place to Marion, another station on the same road. When the train stopped at New London, the plaintiff went on board one of the cars. Entering the car at the rear end, and carrying a satchel in her hand, she walked along the aisle of the car, looking for a seat, and while so walking, she stumbled over two satchels, which were then in such aisle, and fell, and received considerable injury. None of the employes of the company were in the car at the time of the accident. The car was lighted at the time, so that