Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Carlisle

• Decision Date: 14 November 1911
• Citation: 56 So. 737,2 Ala.App. 514
• Parties: CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. v. CARLISLE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

56 So. 737

2 Ala.App. 514

CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. v. CARLISLE.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

November 14, 1911

Appeal from Circuit Court, Coosa County; H. P. Merritt, Special Judge.

Action by Mrs. Bennie Mae Carlisle against the Central of Georgia Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

George P. Harrison, for appellant.

Riddle Ellis, Riddle & Pruett, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

1. It is the duty of a railroad company, as a common carrier of passengers, to safely deliver its passengers at the station to which they have paid their fare. N. Y., etc., Ry. Co v. Doane, 115 Ind. 435, 17 N.E. 913, 1 L. R. A. 157, 7 Am. St. Rep. 451, 456. This includes the announcement of the arrival of the train at the station, with a reasonable opportunity to there leave the cars. Raben v. Central Iowa R. Co., 73 Iowa, 579, 35 N.W. 645, 5 Am. St. Rep 708; Hurt v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 94 Mo. 255, 7 S.W. 1, 4 Am. St. Rep. 374; Sevier v. V. & M. R Co., 61 Miss. 11, 48 Am. Rep. 74. And when it has done these things and afforded also a safe and convenient means for alighting and departing, the carrier's duty has been fully discharged. Raben v. Central Iowa R. Co., 74 Iowa, 732, 34 N.W. 621.

In accordance with these principles, it has been settled by an overwhelming array of authorities that the law does not impose upon the carrier the duty of assisting passengers to alight from its cars. Hanlon v. Central R. Co. of N. J., 187 N.Y. 73, 79 N.E. 846, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 411 and note, 116 Am. St. Rep. 591; Central R. Co. v. Cruse, 123 Ky. 463, 96 S.W. 821, 29 Ky. Law Rep. 914, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 299, citing and discussing many cases; McGovern v. Interurban R. Co., 136 Iowa, 13, 111 N.W. 412, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 476, 125 Am. St. Rep. 215; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Green, 85 Ark. 117, 107 S.W. 168, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1148; Raben v. Central Iowa R. Co., supra; Hurt v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., supra; 5 A. & E. Ency. Law (2d Ed.) 579; 6 Cyc. 611.

There is a generally recognized exception to this rule, however, where a person is accepted as a passenger who is unable, through physical or mental disability, to care for himself, and this disability is known or made known to the carrier at the time of acceptance. Williams v. L. & N. R. Co., 150 Ala. 324, 43 So. 576, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 413; Ill. Central R. Co. v. Cruse, supra, note.

By the weight of authority, also, it is held to be the duty of the carrier to assist a passenger in alighting if, obviously to its agents in charge, such passenger is then too sick or infirm or disabled to safely alight without aid. 6 Cyc. 611, and cases cited; case note to Ill. Central R. Co. v. Cruse, supra. But it is not the carrier's duty to anticipate such disabilities or needs, nor to be on the lookout for them. Ill. Central R. Co. v. Cruse, 123 Ky. 463, 96 S.W. 821, 29 Ky. Law Rep. 914, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 303.

Again, by all the authorities, it is held that if assistance is actually proffered to a passenger, whether in need of it or not, injurious negligence with respect thereto renders the carrier liable. Williams v. L. & N. R. Co., 150 Ala. 324, 43 So. 576, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 413; Hanlon v. Central R. Co., 187 N.Y. 73, 79 N.E. 846, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 411, and note, 116 Am. St. Rep. 591.

2. Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the condition of the plaintiff when she sought to alight was not one of obvious infirmity or disability, although she was carrying "a valise, a parasol, and a fan"; nor does it appear that the conductor even saw what she had in her hands as she came out and descended the steps of the car. Neither she nor her husband, just in front of her, asked for or appeared to desire assistance, and there was no duty to volunteer to give it; nor was she relying upon any one's assistance negligently rendered or withheld.

3. It is insisted, however, that the carrier's rules required its conductors to assist lady passengers on and off its cars. The only evidence on this point is the statement of the conductor, Gordie, that "the rules require you to see them (ladies) safely on and off." He further stated: "I have had the practice a good many years when ladies have baggage to help them off when they ask me, and very often when I find an old gentleman or an old lady I help them off without being asked."

This falls very far short of tending to show a rule requiring conductors to physically assist lady passengers in alighting. And, even if such a rule were conceded, the duty was gratuitously assumed, and, unless known to and relied upon by such a passenger to her hurt, nonconformity thereto by its agents would impose no liability on the carrier. Barney v. Ry. Co., 126 Mo. 392, 28 S.W. 1069, 26 L. R. A. 847.

4. There is another point of view unfavorable to plaintiff's contention. If a person otherwise entitled to receive the volunteer aid of the carrier's agents in alighting from the car is nevertheless attended by husband or friend apparently capable of giving the needed assistance, the duty of the carrier is suspended, and assistance--at least volunteer assistance--need not be proffered. As stated in Hurt v. St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co., supra:...