Bell v. Southern Railway Co.

• Decision Date: 26 April 1909
• Docket Number: 13,955
• Citation: 49 So. 120,94 Miss. 440
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: ARTHUR BELL v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

49 So. 120

94 Miss. 440

ARTHUR BELL v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

No. 13,955

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 26, 1909

FROM the circuit court of Webster county, HON. GEORGE A. MCLEAN Judge.

Bell the appellant, was plaintiff in the court below, and the railway company, appellee, was defendant there. From a judgment in favor of defendant the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court.

Appellant sued the railway company for injuries received through the alleged carelessness and negligence of the company. He testified that, as he stepped upon the bottom step of the appellee's passenger coach, the train began to move and appellant's heel struck a truck standing close to the railroad track, which caused him to fall from the step receiving the injuries in question. Appellee defended on the ground that appellant was himself guilty of negligence, and that appellee was not guilty of any wrong. The court peremptorily instructed the jury and it found in favor of the defendant.

Reversed and remanded.

Dunn Gould & McKeigney, for appellant.

It was negligence on the part of the railroad company to permit the truck of the express company to be left so near the track of the railroad company, at its depot, as to catch the heel of a passenger on the step as the train moved out of the depot station. The fact that the train had stopped at the depot station was an invitation to passengers to board it. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Chancellor, 60 Ill.App. 525.

A carrier is bound to use extraordinary care as to the safety of its station grounds and tracks about its passenger depots. 3 Thompson, Negligence, 146. This is not a case where a man, with his foot on the ground, clutches the hand-hold or railing of the car, while trying to board a rapidly moving train. It is a case where a man who has boarded a train before it starts, and who is trying to get upon the platform of the car, is knocked from the steps of the car by having his foot caught by an obstruction negligently placed so near to the track as to be dangerous.

The fact that the express company's truck did not belong to the appellee, is immaterial here. Mangum v. Railroad Co., 145 N.C. 152; Wooten v. Railroad Company, 79 Miss. 26, 29 So. 61.

Catchings & Catchings, for appellee.

The negligence alleged in the declaration and the injuries sued for must bear the relation of cause and effect. The concurrence of both, and the nexus between them must exist to constitute a cause of action. Benedict v. Potts, 40 A. 1068. The peremptory instruction in favor of appellee was fully justified by the testimony. As stated by this court in the case of Wooten v. Railroad Company, 79 Miss. 26, 29 So. 61, the general rule is that to board a train in motion is negligence as a matter of law, and sufficient to bar recovery for resulting damages. While the court recognizes execptions to the rule, it applies the rule as stated. There can be no exception to the rule except where an intending passenger under stress of time and under some particular circumstances, attempts to...