ages, on the ground of negligence, for constructing a station platform twenty-six inches below the level of the lower steps of the car, so as to compel passengers to jump that distance when alighting;57 for leaving a hole in its station platform six feet long and eight inches wide, in consequence of a plank having been broken in the platform by its agent the day before in moving a box of goods;58 for constructing its station platform higher than the steps of its cars, and requiring passengers to board its trains from a baggage car;59 for · leaving a railroad spike lying loose upon its station platform at the place where it is usual for passengers to alight;60 for having no platform at all or suitable landing place at its station;61 for so constructing a platform between two of its tracks that passengers assembling thereon have a standing room of only about two feet in the clear when trains stand upon each track alongside;62 for allowing snow and ice to accumulate upon their station platforms without taking the precaution of sanding it, or otherwise making it safe for passengers.63

Ark. 125]; Dillingham v. Teeling (Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. W. Rep. 1094 (no off. rep.); Wabash &c. R. Co. v. Wolff, 13 Ill. App. 437; Waterbury v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 104 Iowa 32; s. c. 73 N. W. Rep. 341; Dobiecki v. Sharp, 88 N. Y. 203; Stewart v. International &c. R. Co., 53 Tex. 289; s. c. 37 Am. Rep. 753; Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Treadway, 142 Ind. 475; s. c. 40 N. E. Rep. 807; Illinois &c. R. Co. v. Davidson, 76 Fed. Rep. 517; s. c. 22 C. C. A. 306; 46 U. S. App. 300.

57 Toledo &c. R. Co. v. Wingate, 143 Ind. 125; s. c. 37 N. E. Rep. 274; rehearing denied 42 N. E. Rep. 477. In this case a female passenger, while attempting to alight, was injured partly by the defect in the platform and partly by the sudden starting of the train, sufficient time to alight not having been given.

Fullerton v. Fordyce, 121 Mo. 1; s. c. 25 S. W. Rep. 587. The court said that it was gross negligence to allow such a hole to remain in the platform for such a length of time. For another case where a railway company was held liable for an injury caused by a hole negligently left in its station platform,- -see Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Wolfe, 80 Ky. 82.

Turner v. Vicksburg &c. R. Co., 37 La. An. 648; s. c. 55 Am. St. Rep. 514.

4 Tex. Civ. App. 351; s. c. 23 S. W. Rep. 737.

61 Alexandria &c. R. Co. v. Herndon, 87 Va. 193; s. c. 12 S. E. Rep. 289; 15 Va. L. J. 118.

62 Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Wilson, 63 Ill. 167.

63 Weston v. New York &c. R. Co., 10 Jones & Sp. (N. Y.) 156; s. c. aff'd 73 N. Y. 595; Seymour v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 3 Biss. (U. S.) 43; Shepherd v. Midland R. Co., 20 Week. Rep. 705; Waterbury v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 104 Iowa 32; s. c. 73 N. W. Rep. 341. A court has reasoned that a railroad company owes no higher duty to a person who goes to its station house to deliver packages to a passenger, than a municipal corporation owes to the general public with respect to the care of its sidewalks; with the conclusion that the company will not be liable for injuries to a person going to its station on such an errand, caused by his slipping upon the platform, which has become slippery merely by the action of the elements, of which condition the injured person has knowledge: Clark v. Howard, 60 U. S. App. 22; s. c. 88 Fed. Rep. 199. In an action for damages for injury to a passenger, where plaintiff shows that he left the car while in motion, without the knowledge of the defendant's employés, an averment that the station platform was "out of repair" does not, as a mat

§ 2689. Further of the Duty of Providing Safe Platforms.Railroad companies have been held liable for constructing a platform for accommodation of passengers taking local trains, so near the track that the side of an express train, which does not stop at the place, extends four inches over such platform, so that a passenger standing upon it is struck and killed; for leaving a truck, used in loading and unloading baggage, on its station platform in such a position that if a train stopped with the end of a car opposite the truck, passengers would have to pass over it in order to get upon the . platform, and for stopping a train with the front end of a car opposite the truck, so that a passenger stepping upon it falls and is injured,—the facts presenting a question for the jury with reference to the negligence of the railway company;65 for a servant of a railroad company, in removing a trunk to a baggage car, to slide it on the ice, so that it leaves a straight line and takes an oblique direction, striking a person who has come to the depot to assist friends. who are leaving on one of defendant's trains, and who is standing in plain view on the platform.66 For the station agent of a railway company to open the station for the sale of tickets for a train which is about to pass, is tantamount to an invitation to persons to come there if they wish to take a train; and persons coming there for that purpose are lawfully there, and are entitled to the rights of passengers. When, therefore, a woman had purchased a ticket, and, while waiting for the train, was injured by falling through a hole in the floor of a toilet-room to which she had gone for a necessary purpose, and which was unlighted,-it was held that she could recover damages. It has been held that the duty on the part of a railway company, of keeping its premises in a safe condition, extends in favor of one who, having an appointment with a passenger, enters upon the company's premises intending, in case the appointment is kept, to become a passenger himself. The duty extends to the

67

ter of law, show negligence of the company: Pennsylvania Co. V. Marion, 104 Ind. 239; s. c. 2 West. Rep. 234. The court held that the pleading was insufficient in that it did not show specifically in what respect the company was negligent in maintaining this platform, and said: "To authorize a recovery for an injury so received, in any case, the negligence of the carrier ought not to be left to inference upon an equivocal statement of facts."

Dobiecki v. Sharp, 88 N. Y. 203. It was held that the passenger had a right, in the absence of knowledge

68

to the contrary, to assume that he could stand near the edge of the platform without being exposed to unnecessary danger. Two judges dissented from this just and reasonable conclusion.

65 Bethmann v. Old Colony &c. R. Co., 155 Mass. 352; s. c. 29 N. E. Rep. 587.

66 Atchison &c. R. Co. v. Johns, 36 Kan. 769.

67 Jordan v. New York &c. R. Co., 165 Mass. 346; s. c. 32 L. R. A. 101; 43 N. E. Rep. 111.

68 Texas &c. R. Co. v. Best, 66 Tex. 116.

69

protection of a passenger who is permitted or invited to enter the baggage room for the purpose of pointing out the pieces of baggage which he wants; and if he is injured in consequence of the unsafe condition of the room, he will be entitled to damages. Where a railroad company permits passengers to get on and off its trains at a particular station, and sells tickets to such station from other. points on its line, it can not be set up that it has abandoned the station, as a defense to an action predicated upon its negligence in failing to light it and keep its platform safe, merely because it has no agent there, and does not keep the station open or sell tickets.70 It scarcely needs a judicial decision to support the conclusion that a railroad company is liable for injuries to a passenger properly upon a platform constructed by it, and run down without fault of his own, whether the negligence is in the situation and construction of the platform, or in the running and management of trains, or both.”1

71

§ 2690. Still Further of this Duty.-The fact that there is a statute making it the duty of railroad companies to have sitting or waiting rooms, and to light the same, the platform, and the yards when required by the railroad commission, does not supersede or abrogate the common-law duty to erect platforms and furnish lights when necessary.72 The fact that the passenger might have taken another means of egress which would have avoided the place of danger, will be no defense to the carrier, where the place of danger was in such a situation on the platform that a passenger would naturally get off there. Nor will the fact that the passenger might have reached the nearest highway without going in the direction of a dangerous place in the station platform, and the further fact that after leaving the platform he intended to cross a track of the company where he had no right to go, exonerate the company. Nor will it be a defense that precisely such an accident as happened might not have been anticipated." But the fact that a similar accident has never occurred may be an important evidentiary circumstance rebutting the conclusion of negligence; and it may even be sufficient,

73

Illinois &c. R. Co. v. Griffin, 80 Fed. Rep. 278; s. c. 53 U. S. App. 22; 25 C. C. A. 413.

To Gulf &c. R. Co. v. Williams, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 469; s. c. 51 S. W. Rep. 653.

Illinois &c.-R. Co. v. Davidson, 76 Fed. Rep. 517; s. c. 1 Chic. L. J. Wkly. 583; 22 C. C. A. 306; 46 U. S. App. 300.

12 Ensley R. Co. v. Chewning, 93

74

Ala. 24; S. c. 9 South. Rep. 458. Compare, as to the governing principle, Vol. II, §§ 1494, 1541, 1544, 1555, 1573, 1576.

78 Texas &c. R. Co. v. Brown, 78 Tex. 397.

74 Keefe v. Boston &c. R. Co., 142 Mass. 251.

75 Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Lucas, 119 Ind. 583; s. c. 21 N. E. Rep. 968. Compare Vol. I, § 59.

under the circumstances of particular cases, to make such rebuttal conclusive. Thus, it has been held that negligence can not be predicated upon the fact that an elevated railway company has maintained a guard-rail at the end of the platform of one of its stations, of just sufficient height to trip and throw headlong a passenger clinging to the steps of one of its cars after it is in motion; since it is not to be reasonably anticipated that a passenger will be so circumstanced, and such a casualty is hence beyond the scope of reasonable apprehension.76 So, where the negligence sought to be imputed to the company was that its station platform was too far from the cars, in consequence of which the plaintiff in alighting from a car had fallen. and received an injury, and it appeared that the platform had been in use for several years, and that no one had ever before been inconvenienced on account of its distance from the cars, the conclusion was that the company was not liable."

§ 2691. Duty to Keep Platforms, Approaches thereto, and Stations Lighted at Night.—It is obviously a part of the duty prescribed in the preceding paragraph, for a railway carrier of passengers to keep its platforms and the approaches connected therewith sufficiently lighted, or otherwise to provide lights to afford its passengers a safe ingress to and egress from its trains.78 The duty extends to other portions

70 Robinson v. Manhattan R. Co., 5 Misc. (N. Y.) 209; s. c. 54 N. Y. St. Rep. 792; 25 N. Y. Supp. 91.

"Lafflin v. Buffalo &c. R. Co., 106 N. Y. 136; s. c. 12 N. E. Rep. 599. It has been held that a stool in the shape of a box about 11 inches square on the top and somewhat larger on the bottom, which is capable of being overturned at least by an incautious step, and which is furnished by a railroad company for a passenger to alight upon, at a place where there is no platform, may be found by a jury to be not such a substitute for a platform as it was the duty of the company to furnish, without regard to the time it had been used and the number of persons who had passed over it securely, or to expert opinion as to its safety: Missouri &c. R. Co. Wortham, 73 Tex. 25; s. c. 10 S. W. Rep. 741.

V.

78 Stewart v. International &c. R. Co., 53 Tex. 289; s. c. 37 Am. Rep. 753; Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Treadway, 142 Ind. 475; s. c. 40 N. E. Rep. 807. Negligence has been predicated

upon the fact of a railway company having its station platform insufficiently lighted at night, and at the same time failing to station a guard on the platform to warn passengers of the danger of falling therefrom; and, under such a complaint, the testimony of the conductor that he did not station any one on the platform to notify passengers of the danger was held relevant: Texas &c. R. Co. v. Taylor (Tex. Civ. App.), 58 S. W. Rep. 166. For a railroad company to leave, for the space of four days, unguarded and unlighted, a hole six feet long and eight inches wide in its station platform, which was four feet above the ground, and over which passengers were required to pass in going to and from its trains, was held negligence as matter of law: Fullerton v. Fordyce, 144 Mo. 519; s. c. 10 Am. & Eng. Rail. Cas. (N. S.) 729; 44 S. W. Rep. 1053. Where a railroad company left unguarded a platform, not intended as a means of exit, but frequently used by passengers for this purpose, and a passen

of their premises besides station platforms. Such carriers are under obligation "to keep in a safe condition all portions of their platforms and approaches thereto, to which the public do or would naturally. resort, as well as all portions of their station grounds reasonably near to the platforms, where passengers or those who have purchased tickets with a view to take passage on their cars, would naturally or ordinarily be likely to go." This obligation extends to the exercise of reasonable care to the end of keeping their stations, platforms, and grounds, so far as passengers will naturally resort to them in the nighttime, properly lighted, at least for a reasonable time. before the arrival and departure of any train; and the cases are numerous where actions for damages have been sustained for the failure to perform this duty, or where the question of negligence in this particular has been held to be a question for the jury.s0 It is to be kept in mind that the company is not an insurer that its stations, platforms, and grounds, shall be at all times and under all circumstances sufficiently lighted to make them safe for passengers or intending passengers; nor is the company, in this respect, under the obligation of exercising that extraordinary care which the law requires it to exercise for the safety of passengers on its vehicles, but

ger fell at night into an excavation in its grounds and was injured, the company was held liable: Oldright v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 22 Ont. App. 286. Contrary to this, a more complacent court has held that a railroad company is not, as matter of law, negligent in permitting broken place to remain in a station platform, but that the question of its negligence is for the jury under all the circumstances: Missouri &c. R. Co. v. Wylie (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. Rep. 85 (no off. rep.).

a

To Stewart v. International &c. R. Co., 53 Tex. 289, 296.

So McDonald v. Illinois &c. R. Co., 88 Iowa 345; s. c. 55 N. W. Rep. 102; Moses v. Louisville &c. R. Co., 39 La. An. 649; s. c. 2 South. Rep. 567; Grimes v. Pennsylvania Co., 36 Fed. Rep. 72; Alabama &c. R. Co. v. Arnold, 84 Ala. 159; s. c. 5 Am. St. Rep. 354; Reynolds v. Texas &c. R. Co., 37 La. An. 694; Wallace v. Wilmington &c. R. Co., 8 Houston (Del.) 529; s. c. 18 Atl. Rep. 818; Skottowe v. Oregon &c. R. Co., 22 Or. 430; s. c. 16 L. R. A. 593; 12 Rail. & Corp. L. J. 112; 30 Pac. Rep. 222; Stewart v. International &c. R. Co., 53 Tex.

80

289; Alexandria &c. R. Co. v. Herndon, 87 Va. 193; s. c. 15 Va. L. J. 118; 12 S. E. Rep. 289; Stafford v. Hannibal &c. R. Co., 22 Mo. App. 333; s. c. 4 West. Rep. 790 (light and guard their platforms); Buenemann v. St. Paul &c. R. Co., 32 Minn. 390; Hiatt v. Des Moines &c. R. Co., 96 Iowa 169; s. c. 64 N. W. Rep. 766 (light its station platform); Fox v. New York, 5 App. Div. (N. Y.) 349; s. c. 39 N. Y. Supp. 309; Missouri &c. R. Co. v. Turley (Ind. Ter. App.), 37 S. W. Rep. 52 (no off. rep.); Missouri &c. R. Co. v. Miller, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 428; s. c. 39 S. W. Rep. 583 (under the Texas statute); Bishop v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 67 Wis. 610; Alabama &c. R. Co. v. Arnold, 80 Ala. 600; Texas &c. R. Co. v. Reich (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. Rep. 817 (no off. rep.) (under Texas statute); Wentworth v. Eastern R. Co., 143 Mass. 248; s. c. 3 N. E. Rep. 355; Jordan v. New York &c. R. Co., 165 Mass. 346; s. c. 32 L. R. A. 101; 43 N. E. Rep. 111; Missouri &c. R. Co. v. Neiswanger, 41 Kan. 621; s. c. 21 Pac. Rep. 582; Waller v. Missouri &c. R. Co., 59 Mo. App. 410.