Gage v. Illinois Central Railroad Company

• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CALHOON, Special J.
• Citation: Gage v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 21 So. 657, 75 Miss. 17 (Miss. 1897)
• Decision Date: 29 March 1897
• Parties: CHARLEY GAGE v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY

21 So. 657

75 Miss. 17

CHARLEY GAGE v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 29, 1897

March 1897

FROM the circuit court of Holmes county HON. W. F. STEVENS, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Affirmed.

Noel &amp Pepper, for appellant.

Where a railroad company voluntarily accepts a passenger whose physical disability is apparent or made known to the employes, rendering special assistance necessary, the railroad company is negligent if such assistance is not rendered. 2 Am. & Eng. Enc. L., 767, and authorities there cited.

If a carrier of persons receives an infant passenger, without any guardian, he should give him the care and attention required by his age, and cannot object, when injuries happen to him that it was negligence in those responsible for his care in permitting him to move about by himself. Cooly on Torts, 825, note 2.

The obligations of a carrier to assist passengers in getting on and off depends largely on the nature of the vehicle, the facility with which access may be had without assistance, and similar circumstances. Whitfield's case, 44 Miss. 485.

Mayes & Harris, for the appellees.

The sole question in this case is whether the railroad company is to be made responsible for the act of the conductor-whether the conductor was acting as the agent for the railroad company, or as agent for the little boy, or the agent of the uncle of the little boy, in what he undertook to do. So far as the contract made for the company was concerned, there is no question that it was fulfilled. The proof shows that the boy was transported safely and expeditiously to the town of Pickens, and the train stopped at Pickens, and an opportunity was afforded him to get off.

The little boy himself states in his testimony that he heard stations called out, but did not remember them. There is no proof, or attempt to prove, on the part of plaintiff, that the station of Pickens was not called. It is proved distinctly that the train stopped there, and the father of the little boy had a conversation with the conductor.

We think this case is clearly within the principle announced in Sevier v. Railroad Co., 61 Miss. 8, and is not at all within Weightman v. Railway Co., decided in 70 Miss. 563.

OPINION

CALHOON, Special J.

Plaintiff seven years old, was visiting his uncle, who lived near Montgomery station, on the Illinois Central Railroad, his home being at Pickens station, on the same...