In another case, 699 on the approach of a train to the station, a porter called out the name of the station, and the train was brought to a standstill. Hearing carriage doors opening and shutting, and seeing a person alight from the next carriage, the plaintiff (a season-ticket holder, accustomed to stop there) stepped out of the carriage in which he was seated, which had overshot the platform, and, falling upon an embankment, was injured. It was night, and there was no light near the spot, and no caution was given, nor anything done, to intimate that the stoppage was a temporary one only, or that the train was to be backed. Brett, J., said:700 "I agree that to call out the name of the station before the train has come to a standstill is no evidence of negligence on the part of the company. I also agree that merely overshooting the platform is not negligence. But if the porter has called out the name of the station, and the engine-driver has overshot the station, and the train has come to a standstill, the company's servants are guilty of negligence if they do not warn passengers not to alight. At all events, the jury may from the facts infer negligence."701 § 2883. What Other Acts Constitute an Invitation to Alight.— Conduct other than calling out the name of the station may be taken as evidence of an invitation to alight. In one case702 the plaintiff was seated in the last compartment of the last carriage. The train arrived at a dimly-lighted station on a dark night. A guard opened the door, and said nothing. The platform did not run alongside the track the whole length of the train, but curved away from the line at the point where the plaintiff's carriage stood. The as one of importance in the case." Said Mr. Justice Brett: "That seems to me to be a matter of experience of life and habits, which is solely for the determination of the jury." - In other cases, it has been held that it is a question for the jury whether calling out the name of a station amounts, under all the circumstances, to an invitation to alight. See Whittaker v. Manchester &c. R. Co., L. R. 5 C. P. 464, note (3); Petty v. Great Western R. Co., L. R. 5 C. P. 461, note (1); Scott v. Dublin &c. R. Co., Irish Rep. 11 C. L. (N. S.) 377; Nicholls v. Great Southern &c. R. Co., Irish Rep. 7 C. L. 40. 699 Weller v. London &c. R. Co., L. R. 9 C. P. 126; s. c. 43 L. J. (C. P.) 137; 22 Week. Rep. 302; 29 L. T. (N. S.) 888. 700 L. R. 9 C. P. 132. 701 To the same effect, see Taber v. Delaware &c. R. Co., 71 N. Y. 489; Central R. Co. v. Van Horn, 38 N. J. L. 133; Columbus &c. R. Co. v. Farrell, 31 Ind. 408. Contra, Pabst v. Baltimore &c. R. Co., 2 McArthur (D. C.) 42. But this last decision is based upon the decision of the Court of Exchequer Chamber in Bridges v. London &c. R. Co. (L. R. 6 Q. B. 377), which was subsequently reversed in the House of Lords (L. R. 7 H. L. 213), as before stated. 702 Praeger v. Bristol &c. R. Co., MS., 24 L. T. (N. S.) 105; stated at length in Cockle v. London &c. R. Co., L. R. 7 C. P., at p. 323, by Lord Cockburn, C. J., for the reason that, although it was an important case, it had not found its way into the regular series of reports; s. c. Thomp. Carr. Pass., pp. 231, 232. plaintiff stepped out, expecting to alight upon the platform, but fell between the carriage and the platform, and was injured. On these facts, Cockburn, C. J., said: "He got out on the invitation of the guard who opened the door, which implied an invitation to alight, and, I think also, to alight with safety." It has been held that the act of stopping an elevated railway train at a sharp curve, where there is not sufficient light to enable passengers to see an unguarded hole between the steps of the car and of the station, is tantamount to an invitation to the passengers to alight at that point, so as to charge the company with the duty of providing means to enable the passenger to reach the platform of the station in safety.703 § 2884. Circumstances under which Passenger, Hurt in Obeying Invitation to Alight, can not Recover Damages. It will often happen that the conduct of the passenger in alighting at a place where an implied invitation has been given to alight, is so manifestly contrary to the dictates of common prudence that his claim for damages for injuries thereby received will not be entertained. For example, in one case, the carriage in which the plaintiff was riding was carried beyond the station, and stopped upon an embankment above a roadway. The night was rather dark, and there was no light in the carriage, and no stationary light on the platform; nor was there any fence on the top of the embankment, between it and the roadway underneath. The plaintiff was aware that his carriage had overshot the platform, and, without waiting to see whether it would be backed up to the platform, got out of the carriage in the dark, and in so doing missed his footing and fell forward over the embankment into the roadway beneath. It was held that he could not recover damages from the company.704 So, in another case, the plaintiff saw that her carriage was not alongside the platform, but at the edge or corner of it, and that the engine and four carriages further forward were beyond the platform. Being well acquainted with the place, when the train stopped she immediately arose from her seat and prepared to get out with the assistance of a fellow-pas-senger. While alighting, the train began to move backward with a violent jerk, for the purpose of bringing all the carriages alongside the platform. The plaintiff was thrown from the steps of the carriage upon the end of the platform and injured. The court held that, from all the circumstances in the case, the plaintiff must have 703 Boyce v. Manhattan R. Co., 118 N. Y. 314; s. c. 23 N. E. Rep. 304; 41 Am. & Eng. Rail. Cas. 111; 28 N. Y. St. Rep. 692. 704 Harrold v. Great Western R. Co., 14 L. T. (N. S.) 440. believed that the train which had passed the platform would come back again, and that there was no evidence from which the jury could have reasonably found negligence in the company's servants.705 Where a railroad train is stopped at night merely for the purpose of allowing another train to pass, and no notice is given by servants of the company that passengers may leave the cars, they are not entitled to do so; and it is no justification that a passenger was misinformed by some person not in the employment of the company that he must go and have his baggage passed at a custom-house, supposed to have been reached by the train, or that the train was near a passenger station which was not the place of his destination.706 § 2885. Injuries through Defective Appliances to Passengers while Alighting. In conformity with the doctrine more fully explained in a former chapter,707 it is the duty of a railway company to provide passengers with reasonably safe and convenient means of ingress and egress from its cars; and it is liable for an injury to a passenger alighting from a car when at rest at a station, under circumstances inducing a belief that he has reached his point of destination, and that it is safe for him to alight, when the injury is due to a neglect of such duty.708 Accordingly, it has been held that, for a railway company to construct a station platform twenty-six inches below the 705 Lewis v. London &c. R. Co., L. R. 9 Q. B. 66; s. c. 43 L. J. (Q. B.) 8. 706 Frost v. Grand Trunk &c. R. Co., 10 Allen (Mass.) 387. A case decided by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, affirming the decision of the court below, is probably more favorable to the defendant in this class of cases than any other in the reports. The circumstances were that an excursion train in which the plaintiffs (husband and wife) were passengers, on account of its length, overshot the platform when it arrived at its destination. It was then daylight. The passengers were not warned to keep their seats, nor was any offer made to back the train to the platform, nor was it in fact at all so backed, nor did it move until it started on its journey. After waiting a short time, the husband, following the example of other passengers, alighted without any request to the company's servants to back the train, or any communication with them. The wife, standing on the iron step of the carriage, took both his hands and jumped down, and in so doing strained her knee. There was a footboard between the iron step and the ground, which she did not use; but there was no evidence of any carelessness or awkwardness in the manner of descent, except such as might be inferred from the above facts. It was held by both courts that there was no evidence for the jury of negligence in the defendants, and that the accident was entirely the result of the plaintiffs' own act: Siner v. Great Western R. Co., L. R. 3 Exch. 150; s. c. L. R. 4 Exch. 117; 37 L. J. (Exch.) 98; 17 Week. Rep. 417. Similar cases subsequently decided are to the contrary: Cockle v. London &c. R. Co., L. R. 5 C. P. 457; Thompson v. Belfast &c. R. Co., Irish Rep. 5 C. L. 517; Robson v. London &c. R. Co., L. R. 10 Q. B. 271; Nicholls v. Great Southern R. Co., Irish Rep. 7 C. L. 40; Welles v. London &c. R. Co., L. R. 9 C. P. 126; Delamatyr v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 24 Wis. 578. 707 Ante, §§ 2702, 2704. 708 Falk v. New York &c. R. Co., 56 N. J. L. 380; s. c. 29 Atl. Rep. 157. level of the lower steps of the car, so as to compel passengers to jump that distance when alighting, is such negligence as will render it liable for injuries sustained by a female passenger who is thrown from the car to the platform upon the sudden starting of the train, while she is attempting to get off, and who is free from contributory negligence, especially where it fails to give her sufficient time to alight.709 § 2886. Injuries to Passengers upon the Company's Tracks in Getting On and Off.710-Although it is true, as a general rule, that a person who goes upon a railroad track is bound to know that it is a place of danger, and to use his eyes and ears constantly for his protection, the neglect of which precaution is negligence per se, yet this rule would seem not to apply where the arrangements of the railroad company are such that it is necessary for the passenger to pass over tracks in order to take and leave the trains.712 In such case, the railroad company are under a duty, by virtue of their contract for transportation, to provide safe and convenient means of entrance to and departure from their trains.713 Where, therefore, there is such a conflict in the running arrangements of the road that, at the same time passengers are getting on or off a train at a station where they must cross over tracks in order to do so, trains are run over these tracks, this circumstance, especially where no seasonable notice is given of the approach of such trains, is an act of negligence on the part of the company, and has been justly reprobated. Where such train was not running at more than three miles an hour and its bell was ringing, and the track on which it was approaching was enveloped in steam and smoke from the engine, it was held that action 700 Toledo &c. R. Co. v. Wingate, 143 Ind. 125; s. c. 37 N. E. Rep. 274; petition for rehearing denied, 42 N. E. Rep. 477. 714 Pa. St. 318; Klein v. Jewett, 26 N. J. 714 Klein v. Jewett, supra; Terry v. Jewett, 78 N. Y. 338; s. c. 20 Alb. 710 This section is cited in §§ 2641, L. J. 393; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Wil2665, 2840, 3527. 711 Railroad Co. v. Houston, 95 U. S. 697; s. c. 6 Cent. L. J. 132; Bancroft v. Boston &c. R. Co., 97 Mass. 275; Wilcox v. Rome &c. R. Co., 39 N. Y. 358; Ernst v. Hudson &c. R. Co., 39 N. Y. 61; Sutton v. Delaware &c. R. Co., 66 N. Y. 243; Mulherrin v. Delaware &c. R. Co., 81 Pa. St. 366; Illinois &c. R. Co. v. Hetherington, 83 Ill. 510; North Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Heileman, 49 Pa. St. 60. 12 Post, 3050; Atlantic City R. Co. v. Goodin, 62 N. J. L. 394. Compare post, § 3051. 713 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Zebe, 33 VOL. 3 THOMP. NEG.-23 son, 63 Ill. 167; Armstrong v. New 353 able negligence could not be predicated upon the fact that it struck a passenger who was in the act of getting off on the wrong side of the car.15 Negligence has been, on the clearest grounds, predicated upon the act of a conductor of a freight train, in turning away from passengers whom he sees about to board the train, among whom are several small children, and deliberately ordering a brakeman to signal the engineer to back the train without warning to such passengers, and without any signal but a slight wave of the brakeman's hand.716 On grounds equally clear, it has been held that the failure to stop a train and remove from the track one who has stepped or fallen from the train while it is going at high speed, and is helpless upon the track, where this could be done without danger or any considerable inconvenience, or to notify those in charge of another train of his exposed condition, which could be done by telegram before the other train has left the nearest station,-will render such railroad company liable for the death of such person, where he is killed by the following train, although those in charge of it are not personally guilty of negligence.717 715 Golberg v. New York &c. R. Co., 71 Hun (N. Y.) 613; s. c. 54 N. Y. St. Rep. 90; 24 N. Y. Supp. 1143; following Golberg v. New York &c. R. Co., 133 N. Y. 561; s. c. 30 N. E. Rep. 597, on substantially the above facts; reversing s. c. 15 N. Y. Supp. 571. 716 Norfolk &c. R. Co. v. Groseclose, 88 Va. 267; s. c. 15 Va. L. J. 645; 13 S. E. Rep. 454. 717 Cincinnati &c. R. Co. v. Kassen, 49 Ohio St. 230; s. c. 16 L. R. A. 674; 27 Ohio L. J. 383; 12 Rail. & Corp. L. J. 78; 31 N. E. Rep. 282. On the other hand, where a passenger train was stopped during the nighttime by a snowdrift, and some of the passengers, becoming alarmed at the approach of a snowplow, thinking that it was approaching on the main track, and their alarm being increased by the sounding of the whistle on the locomotive of their own train, left the car on which they were, and, while crossing the adjoining track, were injured by the snowplow,-it was held that the railway company was not liable: Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Felton, 125 Ill. 458; s. c. 17 N. E. Rep. 765. An old woman, while crossing the defendant's railway track to take a train in the daytime, was struck by another train. There was an unobstructed view of the track in the direction from whence the latter train came for 2,200 feet. Plaintiff testified that she was told to cross the tracks by defendant's agents, and that when starting across she looked up and down the track, but did not stop, and did not see or hear the train, nor hear a whistle; that she was sixty-seven years of age, and had good sight and hearing. She was struck when she had one foot on the track. It was held that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and the fact that the baggage-master at the station told her to cross the track did not justify her in assuming that she could cross in safety: Roberts v. New York &c. R. Co., 175 Mass. 296; s. c. 56 N. E. Rep. 559. A passenger on a railway train who, instead of waiting a few minutes after alighting to permit a freight train which obstructed his passage to the depot building to be removed. walked along the track to a highway several rods from the building, and fell through a cattle gap with the location of which he was acquainted, was guilty of such contributory negligence as prevented a recovery of damages: St. Louis &c. R. Co. v. Cox, 60 Ark. 106; s. c. 29 S. W. Rep. 38. In an action for the death of a passenger from being struck by a train while crossing the |