Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Burton

• Decision Date: 17 June 1931
• Docket Number: No. 3127.,3127.
• Citation: 50 F.2d 730
• Parties: CHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO. v. BURTON.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

50 F.2d 730 (1931)

CHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO. v. BURTON.

No. 3127.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

June 17, 1931.

John E. F. Wood, of New York City, and Douglas W. Brown, of Huntington, W. Va. (Fitzpatrick, Brown & Davis, of Huntington, W. Va., on the brief), for appellant.

A. A. Lilly, of Charleston, W. Va. (Lilly, Lilly & Warwick, of Charleston, W. Va., on the brief), for appellee.

Before PARKER, NORTHCOTT, and SOPER, Circuit Judges.

SOPER, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff below was injured after he had alighted from a train of the railway company upon the platform at Blue Sulphur, a flag station located about thirteen miles east of Huntington, W. Va. A few of the company's trains stopped at his station upon signal. The building was merely a small shed or covered shelter, approximately six feet wide by twelve feet long, open on the side towards the railroad track. The platform occupied a space between the shed and the tracks five or six feet wide by sixteen feet in length, and was composed of crushed limestone raised six or eight inches above the level of the adjoining ground. The plaintiff was the only passenger to leave the train on this occasion. He left by the front steps of the second coach in the train, stepping off as soon as it came to a standstill. He made two or three steps away from the train towards the shed, and then turned towards the rear of the train, intending to take a path which led away from the platform at its western end. In making the turn, his foot became entangled in a steel wire barrel hoop, which happened to be lying there. Struggling to free himself, he proceeded between ten or twenty feet, and then tripped and fell, after he had stepped down from the station platform. The train was then in motion, having started quite promptly upon his leaving it, and as he fell he turned in such a manner that the rear wheels of the coach he had just left passed over his left hand.

The plaintiff in the District Court depended upon two items of negligence on the part of the railway company, and, the case having been submitted on these issues to the jury, a verdict in his favor in the sum of $6,000 was rendered. He complained and now argues (1) that the company was negligent in permitting the steel hoop to obstruct the safe passage of persons over the platform, and (2) that the railway company negligently started the train before the plaintiff had an opportunity to get away from it safely and without danger to himself. The defendant on its part at the trial below and in this court contended (1) that there was no evidence of negligence to justify the submission of the case to the jury, and (2) that the relation of passenger and carrier did not exist between the parties at the time of the accident, and that therefore the only duty owed to the plaintiff was not willfully or wantonly to injure him.

The second contention of the railway is based upon the admitted fact that the plaintiff presented for his passage a ticket which, as shown by a notice printed on the back, had already expired. It was argued on the part of the plaintiff that the defect in the ticket had been waived by its acceptance on this occasion by the conductor, representing the railway company. We do not find it necessary, however, to decide this question, because, even if we assume that the railway company owed to the plaintiff all the duties which such a carrier owes to passengers on its premises, the evidence does not show negligence on the part of the railway company, but rather that the unfortunate accident which the plaintiff suffered was brought about by a circumstance for which it had no responsibility in law.

The parties to the cause agree...