of gravel, a small quantity of which, not sufficient to constitute an obstruction, had fallen from the gravel roof of its ferry house upon the walk in front of it, which gravel had not been removed for the space of one hour after it had fallen.29 Where the plaintiff was injured by reason of a defective chair in the waiting-room of the defendant's railroad station, and there was evidence tending to show that the chair had been defective for some time, and that the defendant's agent had been notified of the fact, the question of the defendant's negligence in not repairing or removing it was one for the jury.30 § 2684. Extends to Providing Safe Toilet-Rooms Annexed to Waiting-Rooms. It is obviously the duty of a railway company to see that toilet-rooms annexed to waiting-rooms, which passengers are impliedly invited to enter by reason of the connecting door being left open, shall be free from dangerous pitfalls and properly lighted; 29 O'Rielly v. Long Island R. Co., 15 App. Div. (N. Y.) 79; s. c. 44 N. Y. Supp. 264. A railway carrier was held liable for injuries sustained by a passenger, a married woman, resulting in miscarriage and falling of the womb, caused by her falling into an unguarded hole negligently left in an unlighted closet of a station owned by another railroad company, and rented to the former for use in common with the road owning the same, where she was guilty of no negligence: Texas &c. R. Co. v. Neal (Tex. Civ. App.), 33 S. W. Rep. 693 (no off. rep.). That the use of an ordinary swinging door in the vestibule of a railway station does not render the company liable for injuries to a passenger by being struck by the door as it was being violently pushed open by another heedless passenger, in the absence of notice that the latter would demean himself in a dangerous manner, or that the maintenance of such door under the circumstances was dangerous,- -was held in Kiernan v. Manhattan R. Co., 59 N. Y. Supp. 626; s. c. 28 Misc. (N. Y.) 516; rev'g s. c. 26 Misc. (N. Y.) 841; 58 N. Y. Supp. 394. Nor could the passenger who was thus hurt, hold the company liable because the two sets of doors in the vestibule were so close together that they overlapped when open, where such condition did not at all contribute to the injury complained of: Kiernan v. Manhattan R. Co., 59 N. Y. Supp. 626; s. c. 28 Misc. (N. Y.) 516; rev'g s. c. 26 Misc. (N. Y.) 841; 58 N. Y. Supp. 394. 30 Texas &c. R. Co. v. Humble, 97 Fed. Rep. 837. A female passenger who has been compelled by the trainmen to leave a train which is delayed by a rainstorm at a place near a waiting-room provided by the company, will be justified in leaving the waiting-room and going further to seek protection from the storm, and may hold the railroad company liable for resulting injuries, if reasonably clean and decent accommodations are not provided in the waiting-room: Spry v. Missouri &c. R. Co., 73 Mo. App. 203. The reason why the plaintiff left the waiting-room is thus given in her own language: "It was a very dirty and filthy place, and all crowded with dirty, greasy things that were piled up there, and taking up a good part of the room, and leaving just a small place for us to scrouge in. I would rather stay in the rain and get wet than to stay in that dirty, greasy hole. We could not stay in that dirty hole any longer." She walked back through a violent rainstorm to the Union Depot, half a mile distant, and alleged that she contracted, from the exposure, certain ailments, for which her suit was brought: Spry v. Missouri &c. R. Co., supra. and where a female passenger, while groping for the seat in an unlighted toilet-room, so situated, fell into a dangerous hole and was injured, the company was condemned to pay damages.31 In the first place, it is worth while to inquire whether a railroad company is bound to furnish water-closets at its station for the free use of its passengers and intending passengers. In England, it is held that it is not bound to do so, and that the railway commissioners have no power to compel it to provide free water-closets and to desist from making a charge for the use of them, but that it fulfills its statutory duty to afford all reasonable facilities for receiving, forwarding, and delivering passenger traffic, where it charges for the use of its waterclosets, provided that it treats all passengers alike in making such charges.32 The decision is not entitled to much respect. On the contrary, an American court has held that a railway company is liable to pay damages for the suffering to which a passenger has been subjected by its failure to provide a water-closet, and has held that the fact that the passenger might have urinated from the platform steps before experiencing such suffering is no defense to an action for such suffering, although he was compelled to do so after such suffering.33 It ought to be added that if railway companies are so little mindful of their obligations to the public as to fail or to refuse to provide such decent and necessary conveniences for the use of their passengers, both at their stations and on their cars, the Legislature ought to supervene and visit upon them suitable punishment. § 2685. To Whom this Duty Extends.-This duty extends to passengers who are rightfully upon the premises of the carrier when the injury takes place, as, for example, to a passenger who has just come into the railway station, from another train, and who is injured by being struck by a car projecting over the station platform; and to a passenger who, in the course of the transit, tem Jordan v. New York &c. R. Co., 165 Mass. 346; s. c. 32 L. R. A. 101; 43 N. E. Rep. 111. West Ham Corp. v. Great Eastern R. Co., 64 L. J. Q. B. (N. S.) 340. 23 Henderson v. Galveston &c. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 S. W. Rep. 1136 (no off. rep.). A passenger on a railway train, after arriving at the station of his destination in the nighttime, inquired of a stranger for a privy, which was on a river bank, fifty yards from the depot. The railroad platform was well lighted, and extended from the depot to the river; but there was no light at the privy, and a house intervened between it and the lights on the platform. The passenger was not acquainted with the locality, but fell down the river bank and was injured. It was held that he was guilty of contributory negligence and could not recover damages: Montgomery &c. R. Co. v. Thompson, 77 Ala. 448; s. c. 54 Am. Rep. 72. 34 Archer v. New York &c. R. Co., 106 N. Y. 589; s. c. 13 N. E. Rep. 318. 36 porarily leaves the carrier's vehicle for a proper purpose, as where a passenger on a steamboat goes ashore for a meal at an intermediate stopping place.35 Nor is this duty confined to passengers merely, but, upon an analogy elsewhere stated, it extends to the protection of persons coming to the station of the carrier to meet their friends arriving on his vehicle, or to see them safely off.37 This duty extends to the owner of stock, or to his friend or his agent, who goes upon the platform of a railway station to examine a notice which has been posted, under the requirements of a statute, of stock which has been killed by a train of the company; so that if, while he is there and in the exercise of ordinary care, he is injured from a defect in the platform, which could have been avoided by the exercise of the like care on the part of the company, he may recover damages. On the contrary, where ice had formed upon the stairs leading to an elevated railway station, by drippings from the roof, and no ashes or sand had been applied, and the stairs had been in that condition since the day before, it was held a question for the jury whether the railway company had exercised ordinary care in making the stairs safe for public use.39 More than this, if the carrier permits train boys to sell papers on his premises, this, it has been held, raises the duty on his part toward persons coming through approaches from them not so to run his trains or to permit the discharge of mail sacks therefrom, as to endanger their safety.10 38 $2686. Extends to all Persons Lawfully there on Business with the Carrier.11-Persons, however, having duties to perform incidental to the departure and arrival of passengers, and all persons having business with the company, such as shippers and consignees of freight, are entitled to the use of the company's premises, and are entitled to the same protection as passengers from injury while thereon.*2 hackman carrying a passenger to a depot for transportation has been held to be one of this class, and he therefore recovered damages for 35 Dodge v. Boston &c. S. S. Co., 148 Mass. 207; s. c. 2 L. R. A. 83; 39 Alb. L. J. 211; 19 N. E. Rep. 373. 30 Post, § 2686; Vol. I, § 968, et seq. 37 New York &c. R. Co. v. Mushrush, 11 Ind. App. 192; s. c. 37 N. E. Rep. 954; Izlar v. Manchester &c. R. Co., 57 S. C. 332; s. c. 35 S. E. Rep. 583; Hamilton v. Texas &c. R. Co., 64 Tex. 251, and cases cited; Texas &c. R. Co. v. Best, 66 Tex. 116. 38 St. Louis &c. R. Co. v. Fairbairn, 48 Ark. 491. So Ainley v. Manhattan R. Co., 47 Hun (N. Y.) 206; s. c. 13 N. Y. St. Rep. 557. 40 Ohio &c. R. Co. v. Simms, 43 Ill. App. 260. 41 This section is cited in § 2685. 42 Gillis v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 59 Pa. St. 129; Tobin v. Portland &c. R. Co., 95 Me. 183; Holmes v. NorthEastern R. Co., L. R. 4 Exch. 254; s. c. 38 L. J. (Exch.) 161; 17 Week. Rep. 800; 20 L. T. (N. S.) 616 (affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber, L. R. 6 Exch. 123; 40 L. J. (Exch.) 121). injuries received by stepping into a cavity in the platform of the station, such defect being occasioned solely by the want of ordinary care on the part of the company.43 So, a consignee of freight, who chose to unload the same himself, and in so doing stepped upon a piece of defective flagging, in consequence of which he was injured, was held to have higher rights than those of a mere licensee.** One who desires to take passage upon the cars must exercise his right to enter and remain in the station house in conformity with the reasonable regulations of the company as to his conduct while there; he can not exercise it until a reasonable time next prior to the departure of the train on which he intends to go. What is such a reasonable time depends upon the circumstances of each particular case.45 He must also get upon the train in a proper manner, or the company will not be responsible for injuries received by him, even though he come in contact with an obstruction near the track in endeavoring to board the train while in motion.46 49 § 2687. Does not Extend to Mere Idlers and Spectators.-But it does not extend to mere idlers and spectators. Thus, it has been held that a railway company is not bound to keep its premises at a station safely lighted for the protection of one who has intended to take a train, and who, after learning that the last train for his destination has left, chooses to remain on such premises. 48. But, as in the case of trespassers upon his vehicles, such persons take the premises of the carrier as they find them, and he owes them no duty except to refrain from what is termed wanton or willful injury, or from an injury special to them.50 So, it has been held that the duty of lighting its premises does not extend to a woman who goes there to see her husband take passage on a freight train which does not carry passengers, but on which he is carried on a contract with the company, in consequence of the shipment of some horses and other freight. Although it is sometimes said that the depot grounds and passenger houses of a railroad company are quasi-public, by rea 51 42 Tobin v. Portland &c. R. Co., 59 Me. 183. "Holmes v. North-Eastern R. Co., L. R. 4 Exch. 254; s. c. 38 L. J. (Exch.) 161. See, also, Wright v. London &c. R. Co., L. R. 10 Q. B. 298; s. c. affirmed in Court of Appeal, 1 Q. B. Div. 252. 45 Harris v. Stevens, 31 Vt. 79. 46 Phillips v. Rensselaer &c. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 177; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Scates, 90 Ill. 586; s. c. 9 Cent. L. J. 167. son of the general use to which they are appropriated,52 yet persons resorting there for their own convenience, or for the transaction of business in no way connected with the railroad company, are where they have no legal right to be, and are therefore entitled to hold the company responsible only for wanton or willful injury.53 Thus, persons using the station by mere permission and sufferance,—as, those taking refuge from a storm,-can not hold the company responsible for injuries received by the station house being partially blown down, although ordinary care was not used in its construction.54 Similarly, a crowd having gathered at a railway station to witness a passing parade, the company was held not liable for injury to one of this number by the breaking down of the platform, even though the floor was not in a proper state of repair for its ordinary use. 55 § 2688. Extends to Providing Safe Platforms.-Stated with reference to railway carriers, this duty extends to providing reasonably safe platforms for the use of passengers in boarding and leaving their trains.56 Such a carrier will therefore be answerable in dam 52 Illinois &c. R. Co. v. Hammer, 72 Ill. 347. Contra, however, Illinois &c. R. Co. v. Godfrey, 71 Ill. 500. 53 Illinois &c. R. Co. v. Godfrey, 71 Ill. 500; Pittsburgh &c. R. Co. v. Bingham, 29 Ohio St. 364; Gillis v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 59 Pa. St. 129. 54 Pittsburgh &c. R. Co. v. Bingham, 29 Ohio St. 364. 55 Gillis v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 59 Pa. St. 129. It may also be assumed that such a duty would not extend to hackmen loitering on the premises of a railway company after being requested to leave, where, as in Massachusetts, there is a public statute prohibiting such conduct: Mass. Pub. Stat., ch. 112, § 196. See, as to the construction of this statute, Old Colony R. Co. v. Tripp, 147 Mass. 35; s. c. 6 N. Eng. Rep. 367; 17 N. E. Rep. 89; Commonwealth v. Carey, 147 Mass. 40; s. c. 6 N. Eng. Rep. 371; 17 N. E. Rep. 97. 56 McDonald v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 26 Iowa 124; s. c. Thomp. Carr. Pass. 93; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Wilson, 63 Ill. 167; Toledo &c. R. Co. v. Wingate, 143 Ind. 125; s. c. 37 N. E. Rep. 274; rehearing denied 42 N. E. Rep. 477; Fullerton v. Fordyce, 121 Mo. 1; s. c. 25 S. W. Rep. 587; Fort Worth &c. R. Co. v. Davis, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 351; s. c. 23 S. W. Rep. 737; Gulf &c. R. Co. v. Butcher, 83 Tex. 309; s. c. 18 S. W. Rep. 583; 11 Rail. & Corp. L. J. 173; Alexandria &c. R. Co. v. Herndon, 87 Va. 193; s. c. 12 S. H. Rep. 289; 15 Va. L. J. 118; Ensley R. Co. v. Chewning, 93 Ala. 24; s. c. 9 South. Rep. 458; Texas &c. R. Co. v. Brown, 78 Tex. 397; Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Lucas, 119 Ind. 583; s. c. 21 N. E. Rep. 968; Turner v. Vicksburg &c. R. Co., 37 La. An. 648; s. c. 55 Am. St. Rep. 514; Keefe v. Boston &c. R. Co., 142 Mass. 251; Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Wolfe, 80 Ky. 82; Robertson v. Wabash R. Co., 152 Mo. 382; s. c. 53 S. W. Rep. 1082; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Scates, 90 Ill. 586; New York &c. R. Co. v. Mushrush, 11 Ind. App. 192; s. c. 37 N. E. Rep. 954; Oldright v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 22 Ont. App. 286; Fullerton v. Fordyce, 144 Mo. 519; s. c. 10 Am. & Eng. Rail. Cas. (N. S.) 729; 44 S. W. Rep. 1053; Missouri &c. R. Co. v. Wylie (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. Rep. 85 (no off. rep.); St. Louis &c. R. Co. v. Barnett, 65 Ark. 255; s. c. 45 S W. Rep. 550 [citing McDonald v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 26 Iowa 124; s. c. 95 Am. Dec. 114; criticising and distinguishing Texas &c. R. Co. v. Orr, 46 Ark. 195; St. Louis &c. R. Co. v. Cantrell, 37 Ark. 519; s. c. 49 Am. Rep. 105; Little Rock &c. R. Co. v. Cavenesse, 48 |