Lake St. El. R. Co. v. Burgess

• Decision Date: 18 February 1903
• Citation: 200 Ill. 628,66 N.E. 215
• Parties: LAKE STREET EL. R. CO. v. BURGESS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

200 Ill. 628

66 N.E. 215

LAKE STREET EL. R. CO.

v.BURGESS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 18, 1903.

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

Action by Kate Burgess against the Lake Street Elevated Railroad Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, affirmed by the appellate court (99 Ill. App. 499), defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Clarence A. Knight and William G. Adams, for appellant.

William A. Doyle and Thomas E. Rooney, for appellee.

RICKS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the appellate court affirming a judgment of the circuit court of Cook county for $2,500 in favor of appellee and against appellant in a suit for damages for injuries received by her while attempting to board a train operated by appellant. It appears from the evidence that appellee on the 23d day of September, 1896, boarded a shuttle car of appellant, running from Market and Madison streets, and paid her fare, to be carried thence to Austin, a suburb, where she resided, and was taken in this car to the main line of the appellant, at Canal and Lake streets, in Chicago, at which last-mentioned point she left the shuttle train, to transfer to a train going west on the main line. This shuttle car ran only from the point of starting to Canal street and return, and was used to carry passengers to appellant's main line, at Canal street. The station platform at that place is located between the tracks, which spread at that point, one running on either side of the platform, and is therefore called an ‘island platform.’ The platform of the station is on the same level as the platform of the cars, with a space between just wide enough to provide for the clearance of the cars. After the plaintiff had waited a short time at this island platform, the west-bound train arrived. This train consisted of three cars and a motor car. Prior to the day before the accident these trains had been propelled by steam, but on account of repairs the motive power had been changed to electricity. She started from the bench on which she had been sitting, and walked towards the train. As she approached, she observed vacant seats in the rear end of the front or motor car, and her mind was attracted to getting in, and getting one of these seats. Although she had ridden over the road seven or eight years, she had not before then entered a train on this line, made up and propelled as this one was. She stated that on approaching the train she was calm, was not excited,and was watching and endeavoring to avoid injury, and, on account of the darkness, mistook the place where the opening was to be the platform of the front or motor car. It was in the night. The place was dark, and not lighted. The motor car on this side had no platform, and, instead of stepping upon the platform, appellee stepped between the motor car and the car behind it, fell to the track below, and sustained serious injuries. It was alleged in the declaration that the defendant carelessly, negligently, etc., failed to provide suitable safeguards between the cars to prevent passengers, while attempting to board the trains, from being precipitated into the space between the cars.

It is first contended by the appellant that the court erred in refusing to peremptorily instruct the jury to find the appellant not guilty. If appellee was a passenger, it was the duty of appellant to exercise the highest degree of care, skill, and diligence for her safety, consistent with the mode of conveyance employed, as long as she remained a passenger. There was evidence in the record tending to show that this space between the cars was usually protected by a trellis gate, and at the time of the accident the gate had been removed, leaving an unguarded hole, that a passenger might, in the dark, easily mistake for the platform of a car; that appellant had accepted appellee as a passenger, and had placed her upon this island platform to wait for its connecting car; and that appellant was dereclict in its duty, in providing appellee this unsafe and dangerous place in which to board the connecting line. Whether or not appellant was negligent in the discharge of its duty, or appellee was...