the platform at all, the question of negligence is usually one for the jury.31 To maintain a station platform with a dangerous slope towards a lower track platform, over which slope passengers are required to pass in going from the waiting room, is clearly negligence.32 And to leave a hole in the floor of the platform, after having had knowledge of its condition, is an act of gross negligence.33 But having provided a reasonably safe platform over which persons desiring to board its trains may safely and conveniently pass, the railroad company will have discharged its full duty in that regard and it will not be liable if a passenger is accidentally injured while upon it.34 And in order to maintain an action against the company for an injury received from a passing train, the passenger's use of the platform must have been limited to the purposes for which it was manifestly adapted.35 So it will not be incumbent on the railroad company to provide a platform away from the depot for the accommodation of persons who may attempt to board its trains whilst in motion,36 or to save persons who may accidentally fall from the train.37 31. Railroad Co. v. Dupont, 128 Fed. 840, 64 C. C. A. 478; Archer v. Railroad Co., 106 N. Y. 589, 13 N. E. Rep. 318; Dobiecki v. Sharp, 88 N. Y. 203. 32. Rathgebe v. Railroad Co., 179 Pa. St. 31, 36 Atl. Rep. 160. 33. Liscomb v. The Railroad & Trans. Co., 6 Lans. 75; Toledo, etc. R. R. v. Grush, 67 Ill. 262; Pennsylvania Co. v. Marion, 123 Ind. 415; Lucas v. Penn. Co., 120 Ind. 205; Railway Co. v. Stansberry, 132 Ind. 533, 32 N. E. Rep. 218; Fullerton v. Fordyce, 121 Mo. 1, 25 S. W. Rep. 587, 42 Am. St. Rep. 516, citing Hutch. on Carr.; Barker v. Railroad Co., 51 W. Va. 423, 41 S. E. Rep. 148, 90 Am. St. Rep. 808; Crowe v. Railroad Co., Mich. 106 N. W. Rep. 395. Evidence of holes allowed by the carrier to exist in its platform some time before a passenger's injury is inadmissible. Railroad Co. v. Henry, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1783, 44 S. W. Rep. 428. It is negligence for the carrier to leave an uncovered water box, set in the ground, in the place where the train usually stops, so that a passenger alighting from the train might easily step into it and be injured. Railway Co. v. Hall, 100 Fed. 760, 41 C. C. A. 50. 34. Stokes v. Railroad Co., 107 N. C. 178, 11 S. E. Rep. 991. 35. Dotson v. Railroad Co., 68 N. J. Law, 679, 54 Atl. Rep. 827. 36. Walthers v. Railroad Co., 72 Ill. App. 354. 37. Garneau v. Railroad Co., 109 Ill. App. 169. Sec. 934. Same subject-Passengers must use platforms intended for them. This duty of a railway company to provide safe and suitable platforms creates the reciprocal duty on the part of passengers or intended passengers, while waiting for the arrival of trains, to occupy the premises provided for them. If they voluntarily go upon other platforms,38 or other parts of the same platform,39 used exclusively by the company for the handling of freight, or if they pass to another part of the station yards not intended for the use of passengers when no necessity exists therefor, 40 and are injured, the railway company will not be liable. Sec. 935. Same subject-Liability for obstructions on platforms. A railway carrier is bound by law to keep its passenger station platforms free from obstruction and in such condition generally that passengers may go to and from its trains with reasonable safety. This does not mean that every indulgence of the carrier in permitting an object to remain upon the station platform, where passengers are invited to pass, will be negligence, for the character and importance of the station may be such that the carrier will have the right to use such platform for the purpose of loading and unloading freight as well as for passenger service, and in such case the presence of freight upon the platform would not of itself render the carrier guilty of negligence. But it does mean that, having in mind the uses to which its depot platform is put, it must exercise a degree of care commensurate with the added 38. Gunderman v. Railway Co., 58 Mo. App. 370. 39. Railway Co. v. Grubbs, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 357, 67 S. W. Rep. 519. 40. Davis v. Railway Co., 29 Tex. Civ. A. 42, 68 S. W. Rep. 733. A charge that "the law imposes the duty on railroad companies to keep in safe condition all portions of their platforms, approaches thereto, and exits therefrom, to which the public are invited or would naturally resort, and all portions of their station grounds reasonably near to the platforms where passengers take passage on or are discharged from their cars," is too broad a statement, but is not reversible error where, under the evidence, it is impossible that the jury could have been misled thereby to the injury of the plaintiff in error. Railroad Co. v. Davidson, 76 Fed. 518, 22 C. C. A. 306; s. c. 64 Fed. 301, 12 C. C. A. 118, 24 U. S. App. 354. danger caused by such use, to the end that the platform shall be reasonably safe for passengers when rightfully upon it, and especially at times when passenger trains come to the station. Ordinarily the question whether due care under such circumstances has been exercised by the carrier will be a question for the jury; and if it should appear that the platform was used for freight as well as passenger traffic, the character and quality of the freight and its location on the platform, the readiness with which it could be seen, the extent to which the platform was ordinarily used in connection with incoming and outgoing trains, the number of people reasonably to be expected, the number actually present, the time of day, etc., would all be facts for the jury's consideration in determining whether reasonable care had been exercised.1 Although it is the passenger's duty to exercise ordinary care and prudence while using the station platform, he has the right to rely upon the company protecting him against dangers which are known, or ought to be known, to the company, yet which are either not readily apparent to the passenger, or, if apparent, which cannot readily be guarded against by him. Thus it is negligence on the part of a railroad company to permit its platforms to remain covered with snow and ice so as to be unsafe for passengers alighting from trains. The railway company ought to remove it, or, if that cannot be done, to take precautions against injury to persons passing over the platforms by covering them with ashes, salt, or some substance which would render them less dangerous.2 So the railway company has been held liable for injuries to a passenger who fell over a mail bag thrown on the platform by a mail clerk, it being shown that the railway company knew, or ought to have known of the practice of mail clerks to throw mail 1. Matthieson v. Railway Co., 125 Iowa, 90, 100 N. W. Rep. 51; Falls r. Railroad Co., 97 Cal. 114, 31 Pac. Rep. 901 (Plaintiff stumbled over empty milk cans while on way to board train). 2. Railroad Co. v. Smith, 59 Ill. App. 242; affirmed, 162 Ill. 185, 44 Me. -, 60 Atl. Rep. 710; Weston v. Railroad Co., 73 N. Y. 595. bags on the platform as that one was thrown;3 and the railway company has been compelled to respond in damages for injuries to a passenger due to negligently leaving hose, trucks,5 or skids in a dangerous position. And if a railway company permits grease or oils to accumulate upon its station platform so that a passenger, while in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety, slips and is injured, it will be liable in damages. In all cases where the obstruction is due to third persons, and not to the servants of the carrier, the length of time the obstruction has been on the platform is a material factor in determining whether or not the carrier knew, or ought to have known, of its existence. Thus it has been held that, where there is no evidence as to the length of time a banana skin. was on the station platform, the company cannot be held liable for injuries sustained by a passenger caused by nis slipping on the banana skin while alighting from a train. And where the platform itself is sufficiently commodious,10 the mere accidental tripping of a passenger over the foot of the baggage master who is not aware that the passenger is passing behind him will not be such evidence of negligence as will render the company responsible.11 3. Sargent v. Railway Co., 114 Mo. 348, 21 S. W. Rep. 823, 19 L. R. A. 460; Ayres v. Railroad Co., 158 N. Y. 254, 53 N. E. Rep. 22, affirming 40 N. Y. Supp. 11, 4 App. Div. 511. 4. Baker v. Clark, 99 Fed. 911, 40 C. C. A. 174 (Held error, in view of the conflicting testimony, for the trial court to direct a verdict for defendant). 5. Railway Co. v. Barrett, (Tex. Civ. App.) 80 S. W. Rep. 660; Ry. Co. v. Reese, 93 Ill: App. 657. 6. Railroad Co. v. Spencer, 61 Pac. Rep. 606, 27 Colo. 313, 51 L. R. A., 151; Railroad Co. v. Woobridge, 32 Ill. App. 237. (In this last case the injury was due to the careless handling of a truck by the baggage master.) 7. Newcomb v. Railroad Co., 182 Mo. 687, 81 S. W. Rep. 1069. 8. Barnes v. Railroad Co., 87 N. Y. Supp. 608, 42 Misc. 622. 9. Goddard v. Railroad Co., 179 Mass. 52, 60 N. E. Rep. 486. 10. As to liability of carrier for negligently permitting baggagetrucks or skids to remain standing on platform provided for passengers, see Railroad Co. t. Spencer, 27 Colo. 313, 61 Pac. Rep. 606, 51 L. R. A. 151; Railway Co. v. Barrett, (Tex. Civ. App.) 80 S. W. Rep. 660. 11. Connor v. Railroad Co., 66 N. H. 424, 30 Atl. Rep. 1121. Sec. 936. Same subject-Liability for not lighting station. It is the duty of passenger carriers by railroad to exercise ordinary care in keeping their stations and platforms and the approaches thereto sufficiently lighted so that passengers, and those intending to become such, may enter upon and depart from trains with reasonable safety. Such lights should be maintained for a reasonable time before and after the arrival and departure of trains.12 There is, however, no absolute rule of law as to what constitutes negligence in regard to the duty of a carrier by railroad to properly light its stations and platforms,13 for necessarily the character of the lights to be furnished at any particular station will depend upon the character and extent of the business transacted at such station.14 But the fact that a train arriving at a station is a special train, or that it arrives at an unusual hour, will be no excuse to the carrier for its failure to have the platform properly lighted.15 Where the plaintiff was put down by the road on the side of the train opposite the station, and in attempting to pass around its rear so as to reach the station while the train remained stationary, in the dark fell over some hampers which had been permitted to remain near the platform, and was injured, it was held, in an action by him against the company As to the admissibility of testmony on whether or not the station was well lighted on evenings before and after the accident, see Agulino v. Railroad Co., 21 R. I. 263, 43 Atl. Rep. 63; Railway Co. v. Rowell, 74 Ill. App. 191; s. c. 92 Ill. App. 103. 13. Duell v. Railway Co., 115 Wis. 516, 92 N. W. Rep. 269; Railroad Co. v. Ricketts, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 687, 37 S. W. Rep. 952. 14. Railroad Co. v. Marshall, Kan. 81 Pac. Rep. 169. 15. Gerhart v. Railroad Co., 110 Mo. App. 105, 84 S. W. Rep. 100. |