Arkansas Midland Railway Co. v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 27 June 1910
• Citation: 130 S.W. 536,96 Ark. 32
• Parties: ARKANSAS MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY v. ROBINSON
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

130 S.W. 536

96 Ark. 32

ARKANSAS MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY v. ROBINSON

Supreme Court of Arkansas

June 27, 1910

Appeal from Lonoke Circuit Court; Eugene Lankford, Judge; affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

Lila E Robinson brought suit against the Arkansas Midland Railway Company to recover damages on account of the alleged negligence of said railway company in failing to provide a safe platform for its passengers.

The railway company answered her complaint, and denied the alleged ground of negligence, and alleged contributory negligence on her part.

On the 26th day of August, 1909, Lila E. Robinson went to the depot of the Arkansas Midland Railway Company for the purpose of taking passage on one of its trains. The distance from the depot platform to the passenger coach, which she wished to enter, was such that she could not step from the platform to the coach with safety. The most practical route to the coach was by the steps on the side of the platform to the ground and from there to the train. As she placed her right foot on the first step in her descent from the platform, she began to stumble, and fell down the steps. She had a suit case in one hand and a box in the other. She did not remember what caused her to stumble and fall. The fall rendered her unconscious and she remained in that condition for about 10 hours. She required the services of a physician for five or six days after she received the injury. She suffered severe pains chiefly from her head and from her hips, and still continued to suffer pain after the physician had dismissed her case. Her foot was 9 inches long. The height of her shoe heel was 2 1/4 inches, and they were about 1 1/4 inches lengthwise. She was right up at the top step, where the platform and the top step join, when she began to fall. The top of the platform at that point is about 4 1/2 feet from the ground. Its approach was by open steps, 8 in number. The top step extends back up under the end of the planks of the platform. It is only about 8 inches out beyond the platform, and about 3 or 4 inches below it. Just before the top step is reached, there is a hole in the platform about 10 1/2 inches long and about 1 1/2 inches wide.

Wash Harris, an old negro, who was near and saw the accident, described it as follows:

"Q. State her movement as well as you can, just before and about the time she fell. A. She had got to the step, and she placed her right foot on the first top step, and then right from that she began to fall, with a curious kind of twisting move, and I says, 'Man, that lady is going to get a fall!' Then by this time she had begun to fall, and by the time she hit the second or third step she made to catch with her left hand, and her suit case fell off. Q. Where was her left foot? A. Her left foot was coming, dragging along behind. Q. What was right there under her left foot at that place? A. There was a hole in the floor right there. Q. Her left foot was about that portion of the platform, where she began to fall? A. Yes, sir. Q. And then she put her right foot on the top step? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then she fell on to the concrete walk, did she? A. Yes, sir."

The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $ 2,000. From the judgment rendered the defendant has appealed to this court.

Judgment affirmed.

W. E. Hemingway, E. B. Kinsworthy and Jas. H. Stevenson, for appellant.

Where a platform is not obviously dangerous and has been in use for years and proved safe, it may be continued without the imputation of negligence. 2 Hutch. Car., § 933; 58 Ill App. 130. A railroad company is not liable for the accidental injury of a passenger. 107 N.C. 178; 11 S.E. 991; 2 Hutch. Car., § 933. Physical injury does not raise a presumption of mental suffering. 125 Mass. 90; 28 Am. R. 93. The mental suffering must be caused by the injury, and the consequence of defendant's negligence. 89 Ark. 58; 65 Ark. 177.

H. A. Parker, for appellee.

OPINION

HART, J., (after stating the facts).

1. It is insisted by counsel for appellant that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict.

"As a general rule, railroad companies are bound to keep in safe condition all portions of their platforms and approaches thereto, to which the public do, or would naturally resort, and all portions of their station grounds reasonably near to the platform, where passengers, or those who have purchased tickets with a view to take passage on the cars, or to debark from them, would naturally or ordinarily be likely to go; and especially by those routes and methods which the company have established by its own customs and practice, as here. This is well established." Texas & St. Louis Railway v. Orr, 46 Ark. 182, and cases cited at p. 195. Hence it will be seen that it is the duty of the railway company to exercise ordinary care to keep its platform in a safe condition for the use of its passengers and others who have a right to go there.

Tested by this rule, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, under the facts and...