Davis v. Waterville, P. & O. St

• Decision Date: 13 December 1917
• Citation: 102 A. 374,117 Me. 32
• Parties: DAVIS. v. WATERVILLE, P. & O. ST. RY. CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

102 A. 374

117 Me. 32

DAVIS.

v. WATERVILLE, P. & O. ST.RY. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 13, 1917.

Motion from Superior Court, Kennebec County, at Daw.

Action by Lucy A. Davis against the Waterville, Fairfield* & Oakland Street Railway Company. Defendant's motion to set aside verdict for plaintiff overruled.

Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and KING, BIRD, HANSON, and MADIGAN, JJ.

Benedict F. Maher and James L. Boyle, both of Augusta, for plaintiff.

Johnson & Perkins, of Waterville, for defendant.

MADIGAN, J. As plaintiff was alighting from defendant's car she slipped on an icy step, breaking two ribs and injuring her back. The jury returned a verdict in her favor, which the defendant on the usual motion asks the court to set aside.

The accident happened on March 22d about 9:35 in the evening in Waterville. A damp snowstorm commenced about 5 in the afternoon, and had practically stopped when the plaintiff boarded the car. The conductor testified that before starting the trip at Fairfield at 9:15 he removed with iron scraper and broom all snow and ice from the ear steps. The defense contends that the slippery condition on the step at the time of the accident was due to the snow which fell during the trip or to what was brought on and tramped down by the passengers. The plaintiff forcefully urges that the conductor's testimony is refuted by the condition of the step, the. slight snowfall during the trip, and the small number of passengers on the car.

We think the true rule as to the duty of the carrier under such conditions is this: Assuming that the steps of the car are in proper condition when it begins a specific journey, the railroad company should not be held responsible, under ordinary circumstances, for the existence of snow or ice upon the steps accumulating through natural causes, during the journey, until it has had a reasonably sufficient time and opportunity, consistently with its duty to transport its passengers, to remove such accumulations. To require the immediate and continuous removal of all snow from the steps during the journey would be impracticable.

"A railroad company is not responsible for the existence of ice or snow upon the steps of its cars until it has had sufficient time and opportunity, consistent with its duty to transport its passengers to remove the accumulation." Riley v. R. I. Co., 29 R. I. 143, 09 Atl. 338, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 523, 17 Ann. Cas. 50.

"A passenger on a railroad train has no right to assume that the effects of a continuous storm of snow, sleet, rain or hail will be immediately and effectually removed from the exposed platform of the car while making its passage between stations or the termini of its route, and it would be an obligation beyond a reasonable expectation of performance to require a railroad corporation to do so." Palmer v. Penn. Co.. 111 N. Y. 488, 18 N. E. 859, 2 L. R. A. 252.

Foster v. Old Colony St. Ry., 182 Mass. 378, 65 N. E. 795, recognizes these general principles, but held the defendant had made no...