Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Brown

• Decision Date: 11 November 1890
• Citation: 14 S.W. 1034
• Parties: TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. BROWN.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

14 S.W. 1034

TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. BROWN.

Supreme Court of Texas.

November 11, 1890.

Appeal from district court, Gregg county.

F. H. Prendergast, for appellant. T. M. Campbell and R. C. DeGraffenreid, for appellee.

GAINES, J.

The appellee was a passenger on appellant's road, and, having alighted from the train in the night-time, in attempting to leave the platform, fell and received personal injuries, for which he brought this suit, and recovered a judgment. The place of the accident, with its surroundings, are shown by the following diagram:

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

There were two platforms attached to the station, both north of the track; the lower adjacent thereto, and the higher contiguous to and north of the lower. Upon the higher, the company's waiting-room, offices, and ware-room were situated. The way of passing from the cars was to go west, along the lower platform to the steps at H; thence up the steps to the upper platform; thence north, along the west end of the building to the incline, marked, "E, E, E," and thence down that to the ground. The plaintiff testified that he had been at the station before the night of the accident, but did not recollect the way which was provided for approaching and leaving the cars; that, on the night in question, it was dark, and that having alighted upon the lower platform he started west, that being the direction of the house of the friend whom he was going to visit. Not being able to see, by reason of the darkness, he stepped off the platform at the west end, and, there being no steps, fell upon a log and was injured. The only light about the station, except those in the waiting-room and office, and the car of the cotton belt road, was a lamp at the corner of the depot building, at the point marked, "F," on the plat. That was an ordinary lamp.

The appellant first complains that the court erred in refusing to give the following special instruction: "If defendant did not furnish safe places for persons to go from their depot at Big Sandy, and plaintiff was injured by reason of defendant's failure to do these things, then plaintiff can recover. And if the depot at Big Sandy has places prepared for the public where they can go in safety, then plaintiff cannot recover, if he received his injuries in going from the depot in a direction where the public did not usually go, and in a direction which had not been prepared for the public." The charge was properly refused. A railroad company is bound to provide but one safe way of approach and egress to and from its cars. But the act of negligence which was charged in this case, and which the evidence tended to prove, was not that the company had not constructed a safe passage-way, but that it had provided no means by which that way was apparent to passengers alighting in the night-time, and that they were left to grope their way without sufficient light, and to encounter dangers that could not be discovered. In such a case, it would have been erroneous to charge that plaintiff could not recover if the defendant had prepared a way which the public could safely travel, and if plaintiff went in a direction which the public did not usually go. There was no evidence that the plaintiff knew the way people usually went. What we have just said we think sufficient to dispose of the appellant's second assignment of error.

The third complaint is that "the court erred in charging the jury that it was the duty of the railway company to provide good and safe places of egress from its platform at such places as persons would naturally or ordinarily go. This was error — First, because the law does not impose such a duty on the railway company; second, because the evidence did not justify such a charge." But we think that the charge was called for by the evidence, and correct as applied to it. The plaintiff, not being familiar with the surroundings, as he testified, was put off upon a low platform. It seems to us that he would most naturally attempt to leave at the end in the direction he desired to go. The way prepared by the company was zigzag in direction, and up several steps, and across a higher platform. How a passenger, in the night-time, in that dimly-lighted locality, could be reasonably expected to find such a way without some one to direct him, we are at a loss to understand. We think most persons would, under the circumstances, have reasonably concluded that they could safely leave the lower platform in almost any direction, and that the defendant should have provided either better lights or safe means of leaving the platform at every point at which a passenger would be likely to step off.

It is complained that the damages were excessive. The plaintiff was rendered unconscious by his fall, and had a rib broken. His physical sufferings do not appear to have been great, because he was able to...