Louisville, N.A.&C. Ry. Co. v. Holsapple

• Decision Date: 22 November 1894
• Citation: 12 Ind.App. 301,38 N.E. 1107
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Parties: LOUISVILLE, N. A. & C. RY. CO. v. HOLSAPPLE.

12 Ind.App. 301

38 N.E. 1107

LOUISVILLE, N. A. & C. RY. CO.

v.HOLSAPPLE.¹

Appellate Court of Indiana.

Nov. 22, 1894.

Appeal from circuit court, Orange county; S. B. Vales, Judge.

Action by Laura Holsapple against the Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Company for injuries. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Fields, Kietzinger & Farrell, for appellant. Zaring & Hottell, for appellee.

LOTZ, J.

The appellee was the plaintiff below. In her complaint she alleges: That on the ----- day of September, 1891, the defendant owned and operated a railroad and was a common carrier for hire engaged in transporting passengers and freight over and upon its said road. That on said day defendant ran over and upon its said road a certain passenger train, on which it carried passengers, and upon which this plaintiff took passage from the town of Salem, in Washington county, Ind., to Saltilloville, in Washington county, Ind.; that plaintiff paid her fare between said points, and defendant undertook to safely carry her from said town of Salem to said town of Saltilloville. “And plaintiff says that defendant did not so carry her, but that defendant, in making the stop at said town of Saltilloville, carelessly and negligently stopped said train so that the car on which plaintiff was a passenger did not reach the depot or depot platform at said station; and defendant, when they made said stop, by its agents, the conductor and brakeman of said train, whose duty it was to call out the stations along said road, called out the station of Saltilloville, and thereby invited its passengers for said station to get off; and defendant, by its said agents, thereby carelessly and negligently procured the plaintiff to get off of said train at the point where defendant had stopped the said car on which the plaintiff was a passenger as aforesaid; and plaintiff, supposing that said train had stopped at the depot platform of said station, it being in the nighttime, and plaintiff being unable to see, and not seeing and knowing but that she was getting off onto the platform at said station, and thinking she was getting off on said platform at the invitation and procurement of defendant's said agents and by the assistance of defendant's said brakeman on said train, whose duty it was to assist her in getting off of said train, and who, in so assisting her, was acting strictly in the line of his duty as such brakeman, undertook to get off at said point. That in fact said train had not pulled up to said depot, and the point where the car on which plaintiff was, and from the steps of which she undertook to alight as aforesaid, was below said depot, and the steps of said car from which she undertook to alight were some three or four feet from the ground; and plaintiff, in attempting to so alight from said car platform, by the assistance of defendant's said agent, the said brakeman as aforesaid, fell into a ditch or ravine along defendant's track at said point, and defendant's said agent, the said brakeman, who assisted her to alight, while acting in the line of his duty as aforesaid, fell upon her, and plaintiff was thereby and on account of the said carelessness and negligence of defendant in procuring her to get off of said car at said point, and without fault or negligence on her part, mashed, bruised, and injured internally, and she has been compelled to expend and incur an expense for medical and surgical attention and nursing, amounting to $200, all to her damage in the sum of $20,000, and all the direct result of and caused by the carelessness and negligence of defendant in stopping its said train before it arrived at said depot platform, and procuring plaintiff to get off at said point, and defendant's said agent, the said brakeman, thereby falling on her, as above set out; and plaintiff was wholly without fault or negligence on her part, and in no wise contributed to said occurrence or to her said injuries resulting therefrom.” A demurrer was overruled to the complaint and this is the first error assigned.

It was the duty of the railway company, under the averments, to transport the appellee from Salem to Saltilloville, and in doing so it was required to exercise the highest degree of care, and it is responsible for the slightest neglect if injury resulted therefrom. Railroad Co. v. Hendricks, 26 Ind. 228. It was its duty also to provide reasonably safe places for its passengers to alight, and in running and conducting its trains to stop at the regular stations and safe places for alighting. Railroad Co. v. Buck, 96 Ind. 346, 356. The appellee, under the circumstances averred, had the right to assume that she was alighting at the regular station, and upon the platform provided for that purpose. Bridge Co. v. McKinney (Ind. App.) 36 N. E. 448. The appellant contends that the immediate and proximate cause of the injury was the fall of the brakeman; that, this fall being accidental, the injury was the result of unavoidable accident, for which it cannot...