carrier, imposes upon the carrier the duty to give a counter warning that passengers are not yet to leave the train; and it may be found to be negligence on the part of the carrier to permit a passenger, without warning him, to go upon the platform for the purpose of leaving the train under such circumstances. The testimony of the carrier's servant, that he did not hear any one make an announcement, is competent in such a case as bearing on the question whether it was his duty to warn passengers, who appeared to be about to leave the train, that it had not stopped for the purpose of allowing them to alight.1 Sec. 1125. Same subject-Effect of notice to passengers to take other cars.-A notice to passengers, bound for certain places, to take other cars on the train does not call upon the passengers to leave the train, especially if the notice is given while the train is in motion. If a passenger thereafter, for his own convenience, and it being too dark to see where he is going, steps from the car to walk back to the other cars and falls through a bridge, he is guilty of such contributory negligence as will bar a recovery from the railroad company.2 the train was still in motion, and was road Co., 139 Mass. 252, 29 N. E. Rep. 666. In Michigan, the court seems to differentiate between the word "station" and the word "stop," holding that where the carrier announces the name of the next "station," the passenger has no right to get off at the next "stop" without further inquiry on his part in order to inform himself whether he has arrived at destination. Minock v. Railway Co., 97 Mich. 425, 56 N. W. Rep. 780. 1. Floytrup v. Railroad Co., 163 Mass. 152, 39 N. E. Rep. 797; Railway Co. v. Farr, 70 Ark 264, 68 S. W. Rep. 243. (Here the call was made by a porter.) 2. Kellogg v. Smith, 179 Mass. 595, 61 N. E. Rep. 138. Sec. 1126. (§ 617.) Same subject-Carrying passengers past platforms or stations.-Carriers must be equally careful not to pass beyond the alighting platform or station, and thus to require or make it necessary for the passenger to alight without returning to it. When this has been done, it is a breach of the carrier's contract, and the passenger may demand a return to the station or platform before leaving the train, and if the servant of the company in charge, without sufficient excuse, refuse to return with him, but leaves him to get back by other means, the passenger will be entitled to an action, and to the recovery of such damages as proximately result from the tortious refusal of the carrier to return.3 But 3. Passenger may recover damages for the discomfort, inconvenience, sickness, expenses, costs and charges which are shown by the proof to have been the direct and proximate, natural and probable result of the carrier's breach of duty. International, etc. R'y Co. v. Terry, 62 Tex. 380; Railway Co. v. Richardson, 14 Ky. L. R. 367; Book v. Railway Co., 85 Mo. App. 76; s. c. 75 Mo. App. 604; Cable v. Railway Co., 122 N. Car. 892, 29 S. E. Rep. 377; Fordyce v. Dillingham, (Tex. Civ. App.) 23 S. W. Rep. 550; Hutchison v. Railway Co., N. Car. E. Rep. 263. 52 S. Is entitled to compensation for trouble and inconvenience in getting back. East Tenn. etc. R. Co. v. Lockhart, 79 Ala. 315; Illinois, etc. R. Co. v. Able, 59 Ill. 131; Illi- . nois, etc. R. Co. v. Chambers, 71 Ill. 519; Mobile, etc. R. Co. v. McArthur, 43 Miss. 180. May have exemplary damages under aggravated circumstances. New Orleans, etc. R. R. v. Hurst, 36 Miss. 660; Southern R. R. Co. v. Kendrick, 40 id. 374; Memphis, etc. R. R. v. Whitfield, 44 id. 466; Georgia, etc. R. R. v. McCurdy, 45 Ga. 288; Chattanooga, etc. R. R. v. Liddell, 85 Ga. 482, 11 S. E. Rep. 853; Alabama, etc. R. Co. v. Sellers, 93 Ala. 9, 9 S. Rep. 375; Strange v. Railway Co., 61 Mo. App. 586; Samuels v. Railroad Co., 35 S. Car. 493, 14 S. E. Rep. 943, 28 Am. St. Rep. 883. The carrier will not be excused from returning to the station because it is inconvenient or troublesome. Samuels v. Railroad Co., supra. But if a passenger "jumps or leaves the train under circumstances which render the act imprudent, he does so at his own risk and assumes the consequences of the act." Owens v. Railway Co., 84 Mo. App. 143. In Railway Co. v. Price, 106 Ga. 176, 32 S. E. Rep. 77, 43 L. R. A. 402, 71 Am. St. Rep. 246, plaintiff was negligently carried beyond her station. The conductor at the station to which she was carried arranged with an hotel proprietor for her to stay over night at the hotel, he agreeing to pay the ex it has been held that if, in such a case, there should be no demand to be taken back, or refusal to do so, and no attending circumstances of aggravation, and the passenger voluntarily leaves the car, all that the passenger could rightfully claim would be compensation for the inconvenience to which he had been put. And if, under an apprehension that the train will not come to a stop or return to the station, the passenger undertake to leave it while in motion, and is injured, he will be chargeable with contributory negligence, and the company will not be responsible." Where the passenger is carried past his station, and, by agreement with the carrier's servant, alights at a point beyond, the carrier is bound to exercise the same care for his safety as if the stop were being made at the station, and if the train starts suddenly while the passenger is alighting, the carrier will be liable for any injuries to the passenger resulting therefrom. And where the passenger is required either expressly or impliedly to leave the car without assistance and to find his way unaided back to the station, during which time he receives injury, the carrier is liable. This is held to be true even penses, and further with the a place a mile or so distant, will passenger that in the morning be beaten and robbed by foot pads he would carry her back to on his way back to the station. her destination when his train Atkinson v. Railway Co., 90 Mo. returned. During the night a App. 489. kerosene lamp which was in her room exploded and, setting fire to the contents of the room, caused her injury. In an action against the carrier it was held that it was not within the scope of the conductor's employment to constitute the hotel proprietor the agent of the carrier for the purpose of taking care of the plaintiff during the night, and that the carrier was not liable. So the railroad's servants cannot be presumed to know that a passenger who was asleep and carried past his station, if put off at 4. Southern Railroad Co. V. Kendrick, 40 Miss. 374; Gulf, etc. R'y Co. v. Head, (Tex. Civ. App.) 15 S. W. Rep. 504; Railroad Co. v. Keith, 22 Ky. L. R. 593, 58 S. W. Rep. 468. In Railroad Co. v. Worman, 12 Ind. App. 494, 40 N. E. Rep. 751, the evidence in the case was examined and held to show that the passenger did not voluntarily leave the car. 5. See post, § 1177, et seq. 6. Railway Co. v. Topping, 25 Ky. L. R. 1390, 78 S. W. Rep. 135. though the passenger is carried upon a freight train. Much less does the carrier discharge his duty where he puts the passenger off away from the depot at night in a strange place, and requires him thence to return to the place at which he should have been discharged.8 It is not necessary that actual force be used in expelling the passenger. For the purpose of this rule, he is required to get off when the alternative is presented of getting off there or being carried to the next station. All this implies, however, 7. Where a freight train is accustomed to discharge its passengers at some place other than the platform, or where it is impracticable for it to reach the platform with the caboose or car in which passengers are carried, the passenger may be required to leave the train at some other appropriate and convenient place not connected with the platform; but in such cases the passengers are entitled to receive such care and attention as are necessary to enable them to safely reach the station. The duty of a railroad company, as a common carrier of passengers, is not performed until it delivers its passenger in proper condition at the station to which he has paid his fare; and where a passenger on a railroad train is carried past his point of destination, it is the duty of those in charge of the train to either back the same to the station, or to notify the passenger how and where to alight, warn him of any dangers incident to alighting at that point, and give him such assistance or instructions as may be necessary to assure his safe return to the station; and if, without the fault of the passenger, he is injured in making his way back to the station, the company is liable therefor. New York, etc. R'y Co. v. Doane, 115 Ind. 435. To same effect, Adams v. Railway Co., 100 Mo. 555. For cases where passenger trains were stopped away from the platform, and passengers were injured by tripping on rails, the railroad company being held liable, see Hancock v. Railroad Co., 91 N. Y. Supp. 601, 100 App. Div. 161; Mensing v. Railroad Co., 117 Mich. 606, 76 N. W. Rep. 98. In New York, railways are under a statutory obligation to furnish adequate facilities for alighting, and if a passenger is carried past his station, and is injured by the railway's failure to perform the duty expressly imposed by statute, such failure is of itself negligence. Minor v. Railway Co., 47 N. Y. Supp. 307, 21 App. Div. 307. 8. Galveston, etc. R'y Co. v. Crispi, 73 Tex. 236; Winkler v. Railway Co., 21 Mo. App. 99; Burnham v. Railway Co., 91 Mich. 523, 52 N. W. 14; Kral v. Railway Co., 71 Minn. 422, 74 N. W. Rep. 166; Case v. Railroad Co., 191 Pa. St. 450, 43 Atl. Rep. 319. 9. Galveston, etc. R'y Co. v. that the passenger had been carried past his station without his fault; for where the train stopped a sufficient length of time for passengers to alight in safety, but the passenger was asleep and was afterwards let off at his own request, it was held that the company, not otherwise in fault, was not liable for an injury sustained by him in getting back to the station.10 And here, as in other cases, as will be seen hereafter, it is the duty of the passenger not to run unnecessary risks or aggravate his injury, but to use ordinary care to avert injury and to prevent his damages from being greater than the situation necessitates,11 and he cannot recover for an injury sustained by him in getting to the station caused by his failure to use ordinary care.12 As the carrier, in making reasonable rules and regulations for the conduct of its business, has the right to designate the stations where it will discharge passengers only upon notice, it is the duty of the holder of a ticket to a flag station where the trains stop only on notice to the conductor to inform the conductor of his destination; and if such passenger fails to notify the conductor or some other employe of the carrier of his Crispi, 73 Tex. 236; Alabama, etc. R. Co. v. Sellers, 93 Ala. 9, 9 S. Rep. 375; Georgia, etc. R. Co. v. Eskew, 86 Ga. 641, 12 S. E. Rep. 1061; Railway Co. v. Humphries, 108 Ga. 591, 34 S. E. Rep. 283, citing Hutch. on Carr. 10. Wilson v. Railroad Co., 68 Miss. 9, 8 So. Rep. 330; Fisher v. Paxon, 182 Pa. St. 457, 38 Atl. Rep. 407; Bascom v. Railroad Co., 102 Mo. App. 430, 76 S. W. Rep. 697. If a passenger negligently fails to alight at his station, a sufficient opportunity being given, and thereafter desires to get off between that and the next station, the company is not liable for an injury incurred in the act of get ting off if it used ordinary care. Louisville, etc. R. Co. v. Stokes, 12 Ky. L. R. 192. 11. Gulf, etc. Ry. Co. v. Head, (Tex. Civ. App.) 15 S. W. Rep. 504; Railway Co. v. Cole, 66 Tex. 562; Georgia, etc. R. Co. v. Eskew, 86 Ga. 641, 12 S. E. Rep. 1061, distinguishing Spicer v. Railroad Co., 149 Mass. 207. 12. International, etc. R. Co. v. Folliard, 66 Tex. 603. In this case the passenger was put off at one end of a trestle and his gun at the other. He crossed the trestle to get his gun, got his feet muddy, and in going back over the trestle his muddy feet caused him to slip and receive injury. Held, that for this the company was not liable. |