Bennett v. Railroad Company

• Decision Date: 01 October 1880
• Citation: 102 U.S. 577,26 L.Ed. 235
• Parties: BENNETT v. RAILROAD COMPANY
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

102 U.S. 577

102 U.S. 577

26 L.Ed. 235

BENNETTv.RAILROAD COMPANY.

October Term, 1880

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Walter Evans for the plaintiff in error.

There was no opposing council.

MR. JUSTICE HARLANdelivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action by John Bennett against the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, commenced by a petition framed in accordance with the Kentucky Code of Practice in civil cases.Its object is to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have resulted from negligence or want of proper care on the part of the agents, servants, and employes of the defendant, a corporation engaged in the business of transporting freight and passengers for hire.The petition was twice amended, and a demurrer thereto having been sustained, judgment was given for the defendant.After judgment the plaintiff died, and the action was revived in this court in the name of Martha J. Bennett, his personal representative.

The controlling question before us is whether the amended petition makes out a cause of action against the company.Under its averments and for the purposes of this case, as presented, we must assume the existence of the following facts:——

In the year 1876, the deceased was a passenger on the cars of the defendant from Vernon to Danville, in the State of Tennessee.At the last-named place-he left the train for the purpose of taking the steamer 'Rapidan,' which belonged to the Evansville and Tennessee River Packet Company, and was engaged in the navigation of that river.Its customary place of landing for Danville and immediate vicinity, on that side of the river, was at a wharf-boat, moored at or against a lot within a few hundred yards of the railroad station.Between the railroad company and the packet company there was, at the time, an arrangement or contract, by the terms of which each party enjoyed a community of interest (in what proportion it is not stated) in the freight and passenger traffic at that point.Each was at liberty to sell through tickets, and give through bills of lading, over both lines.The wharf and the lot were owned by, and were under the exclusive control of, the railroad company.The former was used by the company and the public for storing freight, and as a convenient place for the landing of steamboats navigating the river.The lot had been purchased and used by the company in connection with the wharf-boat, for the purpose of facilitating its passenger business, as well as for the receipt and discharge of freight coming from the river to the railroad, or going from the railroad to the river.For such use of its wharf-boat and landing the railroad company received benefit and compensation.To further facilitate its freight and passenger business, the railroad company had erected and maintained upon such lot, in front of the wharf-boat, a large open shed-depot, about two hundred and forty feet in length and twenty feet in width, in the centre of which was a room or apartment containing an engine, which was used for the purpose of hauling freight to and from the river by means of flats or cars drawn by ropes on railroad tracks.These cars were pulled up the bank into spaces (of which there were four, two on each side of the engine-room) left in the floor of the depot.These spaces or hatch-holes, as they are called, were about eleven feet in extent, and reached from the river side of the depot nearly to its centre.

The customary, and indeed the only safe, available, and convenient route for persons passing from Danville to the steamboat landing was along a plank-way (on each side of which the ground was low and marshy), about six hundred yards in length, extending from Danville along a side-track of the railroad, and terminating at or near the northern end of the depot; thence up a flight of steps to the depot floor, and across the floor of the depot towards its southern end; thence down a flight of steps, located between two of the hatch-holes, to the whart-boat, over a macadamized or gravel way.The latter and the plank-way were constructed by the railroad company for the convenience of those going upon business to or from the steamboat landing.The custom of travellers passing between the railroad station at Danville and the steamboat landing to use as a foot-way the plank-road, the depot floor, and the macadamized way leading to the wharf-boat, was not only a necessary one, but was known to and permitted by that company.There was no path or safe or convenient way around the shed-depot to the wharf.

Such was the situation when the deceased reached Danville by the cars of the company.He stopped at a hotel to await the coming, that night, of the steamer 'Rapidan,' whose usual hours of arrival at the landing were known to the railroad company.Some time after midnight the steamer reached the vicinity of the landing, and, by whistle, signalled for landing at the wharf-boat.Deceased started from the hotel for the steamboat, for the purpose of prosecuting his journey, taking with him a lighted lantern.He went upon the plank-way leading to the shed-depot, having been informed by the landlord that that was the proper route to take.He had proceeded but a short distance when the wind extinguished the light, and fearing the boat would immediately depart, and being able to see the plank-way, he proceeded to the depot (which was unlighted), and, passing up the steps at its northern end, he attempted to cross the floor in the direction of the steps, at the southern end, leading down to the macadamized or gravel way which we have described.He was unaware of the existence of the openings or hatch-holes in the depot floor, or of any other obstruction or danger in his path, and, although using due care, he fell through one of the hatch-holes (which had been left uncovered and unguarded for some time before), down, a distance of at least five feet, upon the cross-ties and rails beneath.By the fall his left ankle and foot were broken and crushed, causing severe and permanent injury, attended by sickness and long confinement to his bed.The demurrer concedes that the company was aware as well of the condition of the hatch-holes in the depot floor, as that such condition was unsafe and dangerous to the travelling public.

The right to revive this action in the name of the personal representative of Bennett seems to be clear under the laws both of Kentucky and Tennessee, by each of which States the defendant was incorporated, and in the latter of which occurred the injuries for which damages are claimed.Kentucky Gen.Stat. 179;Tennessee Code, sect. 2846.

The facts disclosed by the pleadings, and by the demurrer conceded to exist, seem to bring this case within the rule—founded in justice and necessity, and illustrated in many adjudged cases in the American courts—that the owner or occupant of land who, by invitation, express or implied, induces or leads others to come upon his premises, for any lawful purpose, is liable in damages to such persons—they using due care—for injuries occasioned by the unsafe condition of the land or its approaches, if such condition was known to him and not to them, and was negligently suffered to exist, without timely notice to the public, or to those who were likely to act upon such invitation.Railroad Company v. Hanning, 15 Wall. 649;Carleton & Others v. Franconia Iron & Steel Co., 99 Mass. 216;Sweeny v. Old Colony & Newport RailroadCo., 10 Allen (Mass.), 368;Wharton, Negligence, sects. 349-352; Cooley, Torts, 604-607, and authorities cited by those authors.The last-named author says that when one 'expressly or by implication invites others to come upon his premises, whether for business or for any other purpose, it is his duty to be reasonably sure that he is not inviting them into danger, and to that end he must exercise ordinary care and prudence to render the premises reasonably safe for the visit.'

The rule is also illustrated in many cases in the English courts, some of which it may be well to examine.One, referred to by this court in Railroad v. Hanning, is Corby v. Hill, 4 C. B. N. S....