that the measure of its duty in this respect is the exercise of what is termed ordinary or reasonable care.81 .82 § 2692. Instances of Negligence in Failing to Keep Premises Lighted. Negligence in this particular has been ascribed to the carrier where a passenger was injured by falling down an open and unlighted flight of stairs at the end of a station house ;s2 where an aged woman was put off at her destination in the nighttime, at a station neither open nor lighted, and without any one in attendance to give her the necessary directions, whereby she was injured in wandering about the premises, although not by reason of their defective construction;88 where a railroad company failed to keep its station platform lighted, in consequence of which a passenger stumbled over a box resting thereon, although the box was not placed there by the company or by the company's servants;84 where a female. passenger was injured by falling through a dangerous hole in the floor of an unlighted toilet-room in a railway station, the door to which was open from the waiting-room;s5 where a passenger was injured in consequence of stepping from the rear end of a car in the nighttime, that end not being opposite the platform, and the platform being unlighted, although if he had known of the fact, he might have had a safe egress from the front end, which was opposite the platform; where a passenger was injured while attempting to board a sleeping car at night, which was left standing outside the yards, while walking along a sidewalk erected by the company under a contract with the city, from which the passenger fell because of the 81 Hiatt v. Des Moines &c. R. Co., 96 Iowa 169; s. c. 64 N. W. Rep. 766 (light its station platform). 82 Beard v. Connecticut &c. R. Co., 48 Vt. 101. 83 Patten v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 32 Wis. 524. 84 Waller v. Missouri &c. R. Co., 59 Mo. App. 410. The fact that a portion of a continuous station platform was intended by a railroad company to be used for handling freight, baggage, and express matter, will not relieve the company from liability to a passenger injured because of its failure to light such portion of the platform, where it was in fact used by the company as a means of reaching and leaving its passenger trains: Waller v. Missouri &c. R. Co., 59 Mo. App. 410. 85 Jordan v. New York &c. R. Co.. 165 Mass. 346; s. c. 32 L. R. A. 101; 43 N. E. Rep. 111. The fact that the door of the toilet-room had remained open for a long period of time, and that it had been left open when persons entered the station house for the purchase of tickets, was an invitation to passengers having occasion to use a toilet-room, to enter it, although there was no light either in the toilet-room or in the waiting-room, except such as came from the ticket office: Jordan v. New York &c. R. Co., supra. Nor was the female passenger, thus injured by falling through a dangerous hole in the floor of the unlighted toilet-room, guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, where it appeared that she fell while feeling with her hands for the seat: Jordan v. New York &c. R. Co., supra. 86 McDonald v. Illinois &c. R. Co., 88 Iowa 345; s. c. 55 N. W. Rep. 102. passage-way not being sufficiently lighted, the company furnishing no one to guide him.87 So, where a railway company left its coaches outside of its yard, and in such a position as to obstruct the light from the ordinary street lamps, so that the approach to one of them, which a passenger was entitled to board, was inadequately lighted, in consequence of which he was injured, it was held that the railway company was liable.88 So, a petition which charged that the plaintiff was injured after having alighted from the defendant's train, by reason of the defendant's neglect of duty in not providing proper lights and accommodations for passengers at its freight depot, at which the train had stopped, was held good on demurrer.89 90 § 2693. Other Such Instances.-So, the liability of a carrier by water to have its boat landing properly lighted in the nighttime, is not released by the fact that its boat does not start before morning, where passengers are entitled to enter the boat at night, and are provided with sleeping accommodations thereon, though at an extra charge. On the other hand, the failure of the carrier to perform this duty does not make him an insurer of every accident which may happen to a passenger while the duty remains unperformed; but this failure of duty must, as in other cases, contribute substantially to the injury of the passenger. It seems clear that the obligation of a railway company to have its stations lighted, at which its trains arrive, or from which they depart, in the nighttime, is not dependent upon the question whether the town is of such a character as to have its streets lighted by means of gas or electricity; though it has been held that a railway company need not have its platforms lighted with gas or electricity at villages where these lights are not used.92 87 Moses v. Louisville &c. R. Co., 39 La. An. 649; s. c. 2 South. Rep. 567. S8 Moses v. Louisville &c. R. Co., 39 La. An. 649; s. c. 2 South. Rep. 567. 8 Stewart v. International &c. R. Co., 53 Tex. 289. 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. 91 Dunn v. Pennsylvania &c. R. Co. (Pa.), 47 Phila. Leg. Int. 524; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Trotter, 60 Miss. 442. 22 Sargent v. St. Louis &c. R. Co., 114 Mo. 348; s. c. 19 L. R. A. 460; 21 S. W. Rep. 823. It has been held 91 that whether it is, under given circumstances, negligence in a railroad company not to provide lights at a freight depot is a question of fact for the jury: Stewart v. International &c. R. Co., 53 Tex. 289. Where the action was to recover damages for an injury received from the defective construction of a paved walk upon the grounds of a railway carrier, and from the insufficient lighting of the grounds, and two witnesses testified for the defendant, on their direct examination, that the gas burner was lighted at the time of the accident; but on their cross-examination, they admitted that they had no recollection as to how it was on that particular § 2694. Further Illustrations Showing the Extent of this Duty.— If, in the ordinary course of transportation, it is necessary for a pas night, but that their knowledge was derived from the fact that it was always the practice to light it,-it was held that the plaintiff should be permitted to show that there was no such practice: Wentworth v. Eastern R. Co., 143 Mass. 248; s. c. 3 N. E. Rep. 355. A railway company is not relieved from the duty prescribed by the Texas statute (Sayles Tex. Sup. Rev. Stat., art. 4238) of keeping its depot lighted, because the depot is owned by another company which is under contract with it to keep the same lighted, and because it is also used by other companies: Texas &c. R. Co. v. Reich (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. Rep. 817 (no off. rep.) (under Texas statute). Circumstances under which a female passenger is not guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law in falling off a railway platform at a place where there is a descent of four feet which she is unable to see by reason of the platform being unlighted: Missouri &c. R. Co. v. Turley (Ind. Terr. App.), 37 S. W. Rep. 52 (no off. rep.). That in the case of such an action, it can not be assumed, as matter of law, that the want of light was not the efficient cause of the false step and the consequent fall of the plaintiff,-see Missouri &c. R. Co. v. Neiswanger, 41 Kan. 621; s. c. 21 Pac. Rep. 582. Allegations in a complaint that the plaintiff purchased a ticket at one of the stations of the defendant company; that in consideration of such purchase the defendant contracted to furnish the plaintiff a suitable and customary place to wait for the arrival and departure of the train, in the ladies' waiting-room; that it was dark, and the said waiting-room was not then lighted; that the plaintiff requested the defendant to light the lamps therein so that she might occupy said room, but that the defendant refused to light said lamps or any of them, and accompanied said refusal with language grossly insulting and derogatory to the plaintiff, to her great injuryhave been held to state a cause of action upon contract: Bishop V. Chicago &c. R. Co., 67 Wis. 610. According to the Court of Appeals of 160 Kentucky, a railroad company is not bound to light that side of its track on which no platform is maintained, where, on the opposite side, there is a commodious and well-lighted platform for the egress of passengers from trains during the nighttime, so as to admonish passengers that the platform is used for passengers to the exclusion of the ground on the other side of the track; it is sufficient if the platform is so lighted that, by the exercise of ordinary care, the passengers can ascertain that it is the platform used for passengers: Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Ricketts, 96 Ky. 44; s. c. 18 Ky. L. Rep. 687; 37 S. W. Rep. 952. In an action to recover damages sustained by a female passenger in stepping from an unlighted station platform, an instruction assuming various controverted facts, was held erroneous: Dekalb &c. R. Co. v. Rowell, 74 Ill. App. 191. Whether or not the failure of a railway company to maintain lights in such a position as to show the space between a car and a station platform, which is wider than the short step which one passing out of the car with others is forced to take, is negligence toward a passenger injured by stepping into such space in the dark,-was held a question for the jury. Fox v. New York, 5 App. Div. (N. Y.) 349; s. c. 39 N. Y. Supp. 309. For an amendment of a complaint claiming damages by reason of negligence in not keeping the railway station of the defendant lighted, whereby the plaintiff was injured by a fall from its platform, with reference to the question of stating a new cause of action in connection with the statute of limitations,-see Alabama &c. R. Co. v. Arnold, 80 Ala. 600. A railway carrier is not required to construct a depot platform of sufficient length to furnish suitable means to enable passengers to get off the train at either end of every passenger car on the train: Gulf &c. R. Co. V. Warlick (Ind. Terr. App.), 35 S. W. Rep. 235; 4 Am. & Eng. Rail. Cas. (N. S.) 32 (no off. rep.). On a question of negligence in a railroad company for failure to have proper accommodations for passengers waiting for trains, or any lights for a sta senger to leave the train and proceed a considerable distance over the company's premises for the purpose of taking another train, he has the right to assume that the way provided for the purpose may be used with safety even on a dark night.93 In one case the plaintiff's intestate, having been carried beyond his destination in the night. time, was instructed by the conductor of the train to go on to a station at which a train would be met going in the opposite direction, on which he might return. The train reached this station at about two o'clock in the morning, and stopped at a water-house about two hundred and fifty feet west of the station. The passenger immediately got out, and, without making any inquiries, walked between the tracks with the intention of taking the westward-bound train which stood at a water-tank about two hundred feet east of the station. There were no lights at the station house which he passed, and none upon the premises except upon the trains. While passing alongside the train which he was about to enter, he fell into an excavation close to the track, which had formerly been used as a cattle-guard, and was seriously injured. It appeared that the station house was not open for that train, and that passengers occasionally got on board of it at the water-tank, as this passenger was endeavoring to do; but there was a conflict of testimony as to whether the train, after leaving the water-tank, always stopped at the station house for passengers. It was held that it was a question for the jury whether the passenger was guilty of negligence in endeavoring to reach the train as he did, without making inquiries as to whether either train would stop at the station; and further, that, under the circumstances, the jury were authorized to find the defendant guilty of negligence in leaving the grounds in so dangerous a condition, there being evidence that pas tion platform, or guards or railings for it where there are no steps, in consequence of which a person waiting for a train fell from the platform and was injured, evidence that other persons had also fallen at the same place under similar circumstances is admissible: Missouri &c. R. Co. v. Neiswanger, 41 Kan. 621; s. c. 21 Pac. Rep. 582. A railroad company which has furnished a safe, convenient, and well-lighted platform in front of its depot is not liable for an injury to a passenger who, while waiting for a train, falls into a pit while walking into the darkness on a platform at the back of the depot which was not intended for passengers, especially where the exercise of ordinary care would have shown the danger of VOL. 3 THOMP. NEG.-11 walking there: Gunderman v. Missouri &c. R.. Co., 58 Mo. App. 370. It is the duty of a railroad company, under Tex. Acts 1889, ch. 23, p. 19, to keep all of its passenger depots, and not alone those at the junction of railroads, warm and lighted and open to passengers a reasonable time before the arrival and after the departure of passenger trains: Texas &c. R. Co. v. Mays, 4 Wills. (Tex. Civ. App.) 225; s. c. 15 S. W. Rep. 43. 93 Hulbert v. New York &c. R. Co., 40 N. Y. 145; Knight v. Portland &c. R. Co., 56 Me. 234. Contra, Falkiner v. Great Southern &c. R. Co., Irish Rep. 5 C. L. 213. ** Hulbert v. New York &c. R. Co., 40 N. Y. 145. 161 96 sengers often got into this train while standing at the water-tank near the dangerous place.95 So, in another case, the plaintiff, a passenger by the defendant's railway, was set down after dark on the side of the line opposite to the station and place of egress. The train was detained more than ten minutes, and from its length blocked up the ordinary crossing to the station, which was on the level. The ticket-collector stood near the crossing with a light, telling the passengers, as they delivered their tickets, to "pass on." The plaintiff passed down the train to cross behind it, and, on account of the place being unlighted, fell over some baggage which had been put off the train, and was injured. It was the practice of passengers to cross behind the train when long, without interference from the 95 See, also, Dillaye v. New York &c. R. Co., 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 30; s. c. aff'd 40 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 373; and the very similar case of Martin v. Great Northern R. Co., 16 C. B. 179. 96 Nicholson v. Lancashire &c. R. Co., 3 Hurl. & Colt. 534; s. c. Thomp. Carr. Pass. 85. In another case, it was necessary to transfer the passengers on a dark and rainy night from one train to another, at a point where there was no station, on account of the wrecking of a freight train, which blockaded the track. Between the two trains was a ditch about three feet deep, which had to be crossed, over which was placed a plank for the use of passengers. A fire had been built by the trainmen, not very far from the crossing of the ditch, and there were many lanterns in the hands of different employés scattered about the vicinity, but the attention of passengers was not particularly directed to the ditch. The plaintiff, a passenger, in endeavoring to go from one train to the other, fell into this ditch and broke his leg, for which injury the defendants were held responsible, as arising from their neglect of necessary precautions: Vicksburg &c. R. Co. v. Howe, 52 Miss. 202. In still another case, the facts were, that the plaintiff presented himself at the station just as the train was about to start. He desired to go on the "up line." The station was so constructed that passengers wishing to go to a train on the "up line" must cross the "down line," for which purpose there was at the end of the platform of the "down line" a crossing at right angles to the platform on the other side. When the plaintiff arrived at the station, he was told that he was in time, but received no directions as to how the train was to be reached. Being in a hurry, he did not observe the crossing; but, seeing the red lights of the train at some little distance up the line, he ran straight on from the end of the platform, and came in contact with a switch handle, which injured him. There was contradictory evidence as to the sufficiency of the light at the station. It was, however, conceded that there was no light at the switch, and no fence or railing to prevent persons from walking down an inclined plane at the end of the station and onward to the point where the injury was received. On these facts, the question of plaintiff's negligence (the defense being that the accident was due entirely to the plaintiff's negligence) was held to be properly submitted to the jury, who found for the plaintiff: Martin v. Great Northern R. Co., 16 C. B. 179. See, also, Dillaye v. New York &c. R. Co., 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 30; s. c. aff'd 40 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 373. It has been held that the railway company is under no duty to one who enters cars to procure a seat for his wife, and of whose intention the company is ignorant, to light its platform at an unusual place: Missouri &c. R. Co. v. Miller, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 241; s. c. 27 S. W. Rep. 905. Nor is it negligent in failing to light its grounds at a place where there is no station, merely to illuminate a passing train and its platforms: Ward v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 61 Ill. App. 530. |