Holdaway v. Lusk

• Decision Date: 24 April 1917
• Docket Number: No. 1988.,1988.
• Citation: 194 S.W. 891
• Parties: HOLDAWAY v. LUSK et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

194 S.W. 891

HOLDAWAY v. LUSK et al.

No. 1988.

Springfield Court of Appeals, Missouri.

April 24, 1917.

Rehearing Denied May 21, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, New Madrid County; Sterling H. McCarty, Judge.

Action by Laura Holdaway against J. W. Lusk and others, receivers of the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

W. F. Evans, of St. Louis, and N. A. Mozley, of Bloomfield, for appellants. Riley & Riley, of New Madrid, and R. L. Ward, of Caruthersville, for respondent.

STURGIS, J.

The appellants have failed to abstract and state the evidence in narrative form in their printed abstract, as is required by the rules of this court. We find, however, that the facts of the case are so nearly agreed upon as not to require a close reading of such evidence in order to dispose of the questions of law involved. We have concluded, therefore, not to dismiss the appeal as suggested by respondent, but to consider on the merits the questions of law raised, which, as we shall see, leads to the same result.

The action is for personal injuries received by plaintiff because of stepping or falling into a hole in defendants' depot platform at the station of Conran, New Madrid county, Mo. The defendants were at the time operating the line of railway known as the Frisco, as receivers, and are sued as such. Plaintiff received a broken arm and other slight injuries, for which she recovered a verdict and judgment for $500. No question is raised as to the amount, and the evidence on that point is immaterial.

The surface of the station platform at Conran is made of cinders. The defect or hole therein was caused by water from the roof falling in a body near one corner of the depot building because of the downspout being broken. This caused a washout some two or three feet long, not quite so wide, and five or six inches deep. The plaintiff stepped into the hole while it was dark, there being no lights to light up the platform. Defendants had provided such lights, but they were not working or lighted on this evening. There was evidence that this hole or washout had been in this condition for several days. It needs no discussion or citation of authorities to show that the defendants were guilty of negligence in maintaining their depot platform in this defective and dangerous condition. The defendants do not contest the case on the ground that no negligence was shown.

The point most stressed by defendants is that plaintiff was not within the class of persons to whom they owed any duty to maintain a reasonably safe station platform or to keep their premises in a reasonably safe condition; that plaintiff was a naked licensee (the adjective "naked" qualifying "licensee") having no business being where she got hurt; that she came there without invitation and by mere permission only, and the defendants owed her no duty to keep this platform in a reasonably safe condition. The facts, however, are that one Mrs. Morgan, a widow and merchant of the town, was expecting a shipment of perishable freight on the local freight train arriving at the station in the evening. Being the season of the year when the days are short, Mrs. Morgan started to defendants' depot about 7 o'clock to ascertain if her freight had arrived. Being alone, she requested her friend, the plaintiff, to accompany her for the reason, as she stated, that she was a widow, and didn't like to go alone to the station around a bunch of men. The plaintiff complied with her request, and in approaching the depot in the dark met with this accident and injury.

Under these facts, and considering the quasi public nature of the depot grounds, we think the law is that defendants are liable to plaintiff for the negligence in question. We have no fault to find with the rule of law stated in Carr v. Railway Co., 195 Mo. 214, 225, 92 S. W. 874, 877, that:

"The courts make a distinction between a person who comes upon a railroad's premises at the invitation of the railroad company, or for some purpose connected with its business, and a person who goes upon such premises for his own convenience or pleasure. In the one case there is a duty to protect the person thus going upon the property of another from injury, while on his premises, while as to the other, there is no such duty."

When, however, the premises in question are quasi public, as are depot grounds, the class of persons who may come there at the implied invitation of the railroad or for some purpose connected with its business and claim the protection afforded by reasonable care becomes large and varied. It does not perhaps embrace those who come there solely for pleasure or curiosity, but it does embrace those who...