Hickman v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company
| Decision Date | 13 June 1914 |
| Docket Number | 11110 |
| Parties | HARRY HICKMAN, Respondent, v. MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Pettis Circuit Court.--Hon. H. B. Shain, Judge.
REVERSED.
Judgment reversed.
Montgomery & Montgomery and J. W. Jamison for appellant.
(1) Plaintiff was clearly guilty of contributory negligence. A passenger, who, without being familiar with the railroad station, walks around the platform in the dark without any precaution to avoid a fall, is guilty of contributory negligence, barring recovery for injuries caused in a fall from the unlighted and unguarded platform. Stamp v Railroad (Tex. 1913), 161 S.W. 450; Railroad v Turley, 85 F. 369; Railroad v. Grubbs, 67 S.W 519; Archer v. Railroad, 110 Mo.App. 349. (2) Defendant had the right to arrange its stations, and set apart suitable places for use of passengers, and it was the duty of passengers to occupy the places provided for their use while waiting for trains. Gunderman v. Railroad, 58 Mo.App. 370; Railroad v. Coleman, 28 Mich. 440; Railroad v. Cavenesse, 48 Ark. 106, S. C. 2, S.W. 505; Graham v. Railroad, 39 F. 596; Sturgis v. Railroad, 72 Mich. 619, S. C. 40, N.W. 914.
George A. Anamosa and W. D. Steele for respondent.
(1) It is the duty of railway companies to keep in a safe condition all portions of their platform and approaches thereto, to which the public do, or would naturally resort, and all portions of their station grounds reasonably near to their platforms, where passengers or those who have purchased tickets with a view to take passage on their cars. Chance v. Railroad, 10 Mo.App. 357; McDonald v. Railroad, 26 Iowa 124. (2) Instruction No. 1, given for the plaintiff properly declared the law. King v. City of Cohoes, 77 N.Y. 83; Waller v. Railroad, 59 Mo.App. 426. (3) An instruction given for the plaintiff which predicates his right to recover for general negligence is cured by instructins given for defendant, which limits the right to the specific negligence charged in the petition. Johnson v. Railroad, 173 Mo. 307. (4) Any vagueness in an instruction as to the neglect authorizing a verdict for the plaintiff is cured by other instructions stating explicitly the only basis of the verdict for him. Buchman v. Railroad, 100 Mo.App. 30.
Plaintiff's action is for personal injury received by falling from defendant's station platform at the village of McBaine. He obtained judgment for $ 200 in the trial court.
Plaintiff took passage on defendant's road at Columbia, bound for Sedalia and it became necessary to change cars at McBaine where he arrived after dark. He, with a number of others, alighted at the latter place. It appears that he did not get out of the car immediately at the platform or the station building and that he did not go to the front of building at all. But desiring to urinate, instead of inquiring for the closet which was seventy-five feet to the east near to an extension of the front platform, he walked up an incline that led to an elevated and unlighted platform in the rear of the station building. He walked along this parallel with and towards the opposite end of the building and stepped off in the darkness, falling to the ground, a distance of about six feet, whereby he received his injury. When he got upon the platform he saw some persons sitting on the edge with their feet hanging over, and he saw that it had no railing, but, without inquiry, he proceeded on until he stepped off at the opposite end. The platform was about ten feet wide and from where plaintiff got upon it, extended in an eastern direction along the side of...
To continue reading
Request your trial