147 company furnishes a step-box to assist passengers in alighting, and if it is too small to be reasonably safe for the purpose, and if it is placed too far under the step of the car and on slanting or uneven ground, and if, in that situation, a female passenger is invited to make use of it in alighting, and is not rendered personal assistance necessary to prevent her from falling,-these are facts from which the jury may infer negligence; and an instruction which tells them. that if they find such facts to be true, they may find for the plaintiff, is not erroneous as making the defendant an insurer of her safety.1 In like manner a railroad company was held guilty of negligence where the company furnished no platform at the place of alighting, but substituted therefor a box or stool, eleven inches square on the top, and somewhat larger at the bottom, and furnished no assistance, and the passenger, in alighting upon it, was injured in consequence of its turning over. 148 Roundly stated, it is the duty of a railroad company to have a safe place at a station, with convenient surroundings, for the departure of passengers from its trains, and to stop its trains at such place for a reasonable time to allow those who wish to get off to do so.149 Where a railroad company has provided gates for the use of its passengers, which render it unnecessary for them to cross its track after leaving one of its trains, a passenger who has knowledge of the existence and use of such gates, and who has notice. of the approach of a train, which is coming at a slow rate of speed and is properly managed, but who is nevertheless run over and killed by it,—is not shown to be free from contributory negligence, nor is 147 Missouri &c. R. Co. v. White, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 424; s. c. 55 S. W. Rep. 593. The evidence above stated was sufficient to support an instruction submitting to the jury the issue whether the inadequate size of the box, or the uneven and slanting condition of the ground, was the proximate cause of her fall: Missouri &c. R. Co. v. White, supra. So also, evidence tending to show that a brakeman of the railway carrier invited a passenger, a woman 53 years old, and weighing 216 pounds, to alight on the side of the car where the lowest step was 26 inches above the frozen ground, there being no platform or stepping-box, and that he took hold of her left hand, and, just as she lifted her foot to step, gave her a little pull, so that she lost her balance and fell,-has been held a sufficient finding of negligence: Werner v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 105 Wis. 300; s. c. 81 N. W. Rep. 416. Whether, by the use of ordinary care, a pregnant woman could have avoided the consequences to herself of the negligence of a railway company in not providing a safe and suitable place to alight from the cars, the conductor having designated the place as suitable and assisted her to alight,-has been held a question for the jury. So, also, was the question whether, after receiving the injury, the woman could, consistently with ordinary prudence, have undertaken a short journey to reach her home, rather than remain at the station, and take immediate precautions to obviate the threatened consequences: Georgia R. &c. Co. v. Usry, 82 Ga. 54; s. c. 8 S. E. Rep. 186. 148 Missouri &c. R. Co. v. Wortham, 73 Tex. 25; s. c. 10 S. W. Rep. 741. 149 McSloop v. Richmond &c. R. Co., 59 Fed. Rep. 431; post, § 2860, et seq. negligence in the defendant shown; hence no action for damages can be founded on his death." 150 § 2704. And Safe Means of Egress Therefrom.151-For even stronger reasons, this duty extends to providing safe means to enable the passenger to leave the vehicle and premises of the carrier. 152 Railway companies have been held liable in damages for a failure to perform their duty in this particular, or for negligence in the performance of it, in the following cases:-Where a passenger, after leaving a train, tripped upon a grade stake set in a footpath leading from the station, that being to her the only apparent way out, although there was another footpath, which would have been safe, unknown to her;153 where the conductor tells a passenger that the train will not stop at the station called for by his ticket, but that he must get off at the "coal chute," where the train arrives at 11 P. M., and the passenger is injured from falling over timbers, while endeavoring to make his way out, in the dark ;154 where a passenger, leaving the train in the nighttime, falls into an open ditch and trestle, in the necessary act of crossing one of the company's tracks;155 where a passenger, on leaving the train, obeys the direction of a brakeman to cross a bridge on the premises of the railway company, and in doing so is injured, although the bridge has been erected by third persons;156 where the servants of the railway company negligently and wrongfully carry the passenger beyond the usual stopping place of the train and into the switch yard, where there are no accommodations for passengers to get on or off, in consequence of which the passenger is injured.157 But where the passenger entered the wrong train, and, 150 Parsons v. New York &c. R. Co., 85 Hun (N. Y.) 23; s. c. 66 N. Y. St. Rep. 166; 32 N. Y. Supp. 598. 151 This section is cited in § 2885. 152 Nicholson v. Lancashire &c. R. Co., 3 Hurl. & Colt. 534; St. Louis &c. R. Co. v. Johnson, 59 Ark. 122; s. c. 26 S. W. Rep. 593; Cazneau v. Fitchburg &c. R. Co., 161 Mass. 355; s. c. 37 N. E. Rep. 311; Burnham v. Wabash &c. R. Co., 91 Mich. 523; s. c. 52 N. W. Rep. 14; Van Ostran v. New York &c. R. Co., 35 Hun (N. Y.) 590; Franklin v. Southern Cal. &c. R. Co., 85 Cal. 63; Sanchez v. San Antonio R. Co., 3 Tex. Civ. App. 89; s. c. 22 S. W. Rep. 242; Denver &c. R. Co. v. Hodgson, 18 Colo. 117; s. c. 31 Pac. Rep. 954; Atchison &c. R. Co. v. Shean, 18 Colo. 368; s. c. 33 Pac. Rep. 108; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Wortham, 73 Tex. 25; s. c. 10 S. W. Rep. 741; Texas &c. R. Co. v. 153 Cazneau v. Fitchburg &c. R. Co., 161 Mass. 355; s. c. 37 N. E. Rep. 311. 154 Burnham v. Wabash &c. R. Co., 91 Mich. 523; s. c. 52 N. W. Rep. 14. 155 Texas &c. R. Co. v. Orr, 46 Ark. 182. 156 Chance v. St. Louis &c. R. Co., 10 Mo. App. 351. 157 Franklin v. Southern &c. R. Co., 85 Cal. 63. But a railroad company was not liable for personal injuries suffered by a passenger from getting her feet wet in alighting at a flag station where there was no accommodation for passengers, when such place was ordinarily safe and convenient, but was made bad by heavy after being carried some distance, was advised by the conductor what path or road he should take in order to reach the station and secure his proper train, and, while walking upon one of the defendant's tracks in pursuance of the conductor's advice, was struck and killed by another train,—it was held that the company was not liable.158 § 2705. Duty to Protect Alighting Passengers from being Struck by Other Trains.-If a railway carrier discharges its passengers at a place where they have to cross other railway tracks, in order to make their egress from the grounds of the carrier, the carrier owes them the duty of taking reasonable precautions to the end that, while making their egress, they be not struck by other passing trains;159 and it has been justly held that the passenger, while not absolved from the duty of exercising care for his own safety, has the right to presume that the tracks intervening between the places where he is obliged to alight and the station will be kept safe while he is crossing; so that the mere fact that he fails to look and listen for an approaching train before attempting to cross, will not necessarily be ascribed and continued rains: Alabama &c. 158 Cincinnati &c. R. Co. v. Carper, 112 Ind. 26; s. c. 13 N. E. Rep. 122; 14 N. E. Rep. 352. 159 Denver &c. R. Co. v. Hodgson, 18 Colo. 117; s. c. 31 Pac. Rep. 954; Sanchez v. San Antonio &c. R. Co., 3 Tex. Civ. App. 89; s. c. 22 S. W. Rep. 242; St. Louis &c. R. Co. v. Johnson, 59 Ark. 122; s. c. 26 S. W. Rep. 593; Pennsylvania Co. v. McCaffrey, 173 Ill. 169; s. c. 3 Chic. L. J. Wkly. 399; 50 N. E. Rep. 713; aff'g s. c. 68 Ill. App. 635 [citing Philadelphia &c. R. Co. v. Anderson, 72 Md. 519; s. c. 8 L. R. A. 673; Beirbridge v. Kansas City &c. R. Co., 36 Mo. App. 669; St. Louis &c. R. Co. v. Johnson, 59 Ark. 122; Franklin v. Southern California &c. R. Co., 85 Cal. 63]; Richmond &c. R. Co. v. Powers, 149 U. S. 43; s. c. 37 L. ed. 642; 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 748; Robostelli v. New York &c. R. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 796; Jewell v. New York &c. R. Co., 27 App. Div. (N. Y.) 500; s. c. 50 N. Y. Supp. 848; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Winters, 65 Ill. App. 435; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Czaja, 59 Ill. App. 21; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Kelly, 75 Ill. App. 490. See also, Young v. New York &c. R. Co., 171 Mass. 33; s. c. 41 L. R. A. 193; 50 N. E. Rep. 455 (struck by a train while getting on a crowded platform). to his contributory negligence, and will not prevent a recovery of damages if he is struck by such a train.160 It has been well reasoned that if a passenger on a railroad train alights by direction of the company, or by its implied invitation, at a place where, in order to leave the premises of the company, it is necessary to cross intervening tracks, he remains a passenger until he has crossed such tracks, provided he uses the means of egress which the company has provided, or which is customarily used with its knowledge or consent; and there is an implied agreement that the trains of the company shall not be so operated as to make the exit unnecessarily dangerous.161 A railway carrier has been held liable where the passenger, while attempting to reach the station after his train had stopped on a side track to discharge passengers, was, without fault on his part, struck by a train running on a track between such side track and the depot at an unnecessarily high rate of speed;102 where the passenger, while crossing a side track to the station, was, without his fault, struck by a train going at the rate of thirty miles an hour, over the side track, no warning having been given of its approach.163 So, where the servants in charge of a passenger train ran it upon a side track in the nighttime nearly opposite a station, to permit a belated train to pass, without informing the passengers why they did so, or enjoining them to remain seated, and one of them, supposing that the train had stopped to enable passengers to leave it, got off, and while passing toward the station was struck by the belated train, which was going at a high rate of speed, without ringing the bell or sounding the whistle,—it was held that the company was liable in damages.1 164 160 Atchison &c. R. Co. v. Shean, 18 Colo. 368; s. c. 33 Pac. Rep. 108; Pennsylvania Co. v. McCaffrey, 173 Ill. 169; s. c. 50 N. E. Rep. 713; 3 Chic. L. J. Wkly. 399; aff'g s. c. 68 Ill. App. 635; Atlantic City R. Co. v. Goodin, 62 N. J. L. 394; s. c. 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 407; 42 Atl. Rep. 33; Graven v. McLeod, 92 Fed. Rep. 846; s. c. 35 C. C. A. 47; 14 Am. & Eng. Rail. Cas. 305 (citing Warner v. Baltimore &c. R. Co., 168 U. S. 339; s. c. 42 L. ed. 491); Texas &c. R. Co. v. Nolan, 62 Fed. Rep. 552; s. c. 11 C. C. A. 202 (shunting cars across approach to station). 161 Chesapeake &c. R. Co. v. King, 99 Fed. Rep. 251; s. c. 40 C. C. A. 1. It has been held that a railroad company is guilty of negligence per se in propelling a hand car past a station at the rate of 15 miles an hour, on a down grade, without a bell or other signal, at an hour when passengers are about to gather to take a train, especially when a freight train is in front of the station, discharging freight, attracting attention, and obscuring the view: Conklin v. New York &c. R. Co., 43 N. Y. St. Rep. 414; s. c. 17 N. Y. Supp. 651. 162 Denver &c. R. Co. v. Hodgson, 18 Colo. 117; s. c. 31 Pac. Rep. 954. 103 Sanchez v. San Antonio &c. R. Co., 3 Tex. Civ. App. 89; s. c. 22 S. W. Rep. 242. 164 St. Louis &c. R. Co. v. Johnson, 59 Ark. 122; s. c. 26 S. W. Rep. 593. A railway passenger left the train at a junction to which the company was in the habit of selling tickets, and from which the only egress was through the enclosed lands of the company. While walking along the 2706. Duty to Provide Servants to Guide and Direct Passengers. A carrier of passengers is also under the duty, where the traffic is sufficient and the sources of danger to passengers demand the precaution, to provide servants to guide and direct them to and from his vehicles.165 Upon this point it was said by Mr. Justice Maule, charging a jury: "If they [the company] choose to allow people to cross the line at the last moment, it seems to me they should have a person to point out to passengers who are in a hurry the right course for them to take, and to tell them, 'You must turn here,' or 'You must turn there,' or 'You must go across the railway here.' Or, if they do not have a man, they might have a board placed at the end of the platform with "To the train,' in large letters, painted upon it, and a hand upon that board pointing in the direction which people are to take."166 Certainly this duty is not an absolute one, but will depend upon the question whether it is reasonably necessary to furnish passengers with such assistance at any given station, or in respect of any given train. It seems that railway companies should. be held to the obligation of rendering this assistance to passengers in the nighttime, where they choose to leave their stations unlighted, so that passengers can not conveniently and safely find their own way to or from its vehicles;167 and it has been held that, where a railroad company, instead of furnishing a platform on which passengers may alight from its cars, furnishes a box on which they are to step, it is under the obligation of rendering a passenger at least such assistance as will make the box as safe as a properly constructed platform would have been.168 § 2706a. Duty to Provide Guards to Control Crowds and Prevent Injury to Passengers.-Where a railroad company, by its advertise track of the company from the junction to the highway, he was run over and killed by a passing train, which gave no warning of its approach. It was held that he was not a trespasser on the company's track, but that the company was bound to exercise reasonable care toward him, and was hence liable for his death: Anderson v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 24 Ont. App. 672. Where it appeared that another train of the railway carrier passed between the train from which a passenger was alighting and the station platform, and the passenger was killed in some unexplained way by being thrown under the wheels of the passing train, it was held that evidence as to the movement of the VOL. 3 THOMP. NEG.-12 passing train, its effect on the conductor and others, and the noise and confusion which surrounded the deceased, was admissible: Ranney v. St. Johnsbury R. Co., 67 Vt. 594; s. c. 32 Atl. Rep. 810. 165 Moses v. Louisville &c. R. Co., 39 La. An. 649; s. c. 2 South. Rep. 567; Missouri &c. R. Co. v. Wortham, 73 Tex. 25; s. c. 10 S. W. Rep. 741; Wallace v. Wilmington &c. R. Co., 8 Houston (Del.) 529; s. c. 18 Atl. Rep. 818. 166 Martin v. Great Northern R. Co., 16 C. B. 179, 186. 107 Wallace v. Wilmington &c. R. Co., 8 Houston (Del.) 529; s. c. 18 Atl. Rep. 818. 168 Missouri &c. R. Co. v. Wortham, 73 Tex. 25; s. c. 10 S. W. Rep. 741. 177 |