Laub v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 May 1906
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: LAUB v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. RY. CO.

94 S.W. 550

118 Mo. App. 488

LAUB v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. RY. CO.

Kansas City Court of Appeals of Missouri.

May 7, 1906.

1. APPEAL — VERDICT ON CONFLICTING EVIDENCE—CONCLUSIVENESS.

A verdict on conflicting evidence, and supported by substantial evidence, is conclusive on appeal.

2. CARRIERS—CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS—DUTY TO EXERCISE CARE.

A carrier must exercise the highest degree of care in protecting its passengers, and, in making announcements during the transportation intended to influence the actions of passengers, it must observe such care as will make them intelligible to the different classes of people usually found in public conveyances and to guard against possible misunderstanding.

3. SAME—NEGLIGENCE—QUESTION FOR JURY.

Evidence, in an action against a carrier for injuries received by a passenger, mistakenly leaving the train at a station because of misunderstanding the announcement of a brakeman, examined, and held that the question whether the carrier exercised proper care in making the announcement was for the jury.

4. NEGLIGENCE — PERSONAL INJURY — PROXIMATE CAUSE.

A train regularly stopped twice at a town; the second stop being near a restaurant, where the train stopped for 20 minutes to allow pasengers to procure supper. A passenger mistakenly left the train at its first stop at the town through the negligent misdirection of a brakeman. Before learning of the mistake, the train left him. There was no servant of the railroad present to guide him, and the passenger had no knowledge of the way to take to reach the train. A conductor of an independent carrier directed the passenger, who, while obeying the direction, was injured in consequence of a defect at the end of the platform where the train stopped. Held that the proximate cause of the injury was the negligent misdirection of the brakeman rendering the railroad company liable.

5. CARRIERS—CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS—PERSONAL INJURIES—LIABILITY OF CARRIER.

A passenger, when invited by the carrier, may leave the train at a meal station to obtain a meal, and on such occasions he may walk alongside of the train for relaxation, and if he is injured while in the exercise of reasonable care, by a defect existing at a place the carrier should having anticipated would be used for such purpose, it is liable.

6. SAME.

Where a passenger was induced to leave the train by the negligent direction of the carrier, and he observed ordinary care in attempting to regain it, the carrier is liable for an injury received by the passenger, regardless of what other negligent cause co-operated in producing the injury.

7. SAME—CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

A passenger voluntarily leaving the train at a station, knowing that it would pull down to another platform, held, under the circumstances, guilty of negligence precluding a recovery for injuries sustained in attempting to regain the train.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Buchanan County; C. A. Mosman, Judge.

Action by Henry C. Laub against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Culver & Phillip, for appellant. Eastin, Corby & Eastin, for respondent.

JOHNSON, J.

Plaintiff claims that, while a passenger upon one of defendant's passenger trains, he was induced to leave the train by a negligent direction given him by defendant, and sustained injuries in consequence thereof. He recovered judgment in the sum of $1,500, and defendant appealed.

Defendant argues that its request for an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained for two reasons: First, because the evidence adduced by plaintiff disclosed no negligent act of defendant that was, or could have been, the proximate cause of the injury; and, second, plaintiff himself was guilty in law of negligence that directly contributed to his injury.

On January 18, 1904, plaintiff, a man 80 years old, became a passenger for hire on one of defendant's trains. His journey began at Council Bluffs, Iowa, and St. Louis was his destination. The train left Council Bluffs at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, and its equipment for passengers consisted of a smoking car, chair car, and sleeping car. Plaintiff occupied a seat in the chair car and was safely carried until the station of Langdon was reached. The train made two stops at this point, first at the station provided for the reception and discharge of passengers, and then some 300 feet forward at a restaurant where supper was served for the refreshment for the passengers who desired it. The first stop consumed about 2 minutes, the second 20 minutes. While the train was enroute to Langdon a brakeman ascertained the number of passengers who desired supper there. He asked plaintiff if he (plaintiff) would take "supper at Langdon" and received a negative answer. When the approach to the station at Langdon was signaled, the brakeman passed through the car calling out, according to the version of plaintiff: "Langdon; 20 minutes for supper." When the train made the first stop, 10 or 12 passengers left the chair car, as plaintiff supposed, for the restaurant, but in fact they had reached the end of their journey on that train. The influence of example created a desire in plaintiff for refreshment and caused him to act upon the belated purpose to satisfy his desire. Accordingly, he was the last one to leave the car, and when he alighted on the platform he looked around in vain for the restaurant. While so engaged, the train proceeded to the restaurant platform, the disentrained passengers went their various ways, and plaintiff found himself alone and bewildered. He had never traveled over this road before and became confused in the situation in which he was placed. It was then about 7:30 o'clock in the evening. Plaintiff says there were no lights in or about the station building, and that "it was as dark as midnight on the Missouri bottoms." His physical surroundings may be thus described. The platform, on which he stood, was immediately west of the main track, which runs north and south; 300 feet south was the restaurant platform on the east side of the track. Across the track from where he stood was another platform owned and used by a connecting carrier that operated a railroad eleven miles long between Langdon and Rockport. Directly east of this platform was the main track of this road, which also ran north and south, and on this track stood a train on the point of departure, consisting of a small engine and one antiquated passenger coach that was "illuminated" by four lanterns. The engine carried a headlight that threw its beams towards the south. So placed, plaintiff says he heard a "voice out of the darkness" inquiring if he wished to go to Rockport. Plaintiff answered, "No," and said that he was looking for the restaurant and for his train. The voice belonged to the conductor of the Rockport train, who was standing on the platform across the way, and replied that if plain-would come over he would be guided aright. Accepting this invitation, plaintiff crossed the track and joined the conductor. Both then started south—the conductor carrying a lantern—and walked along the platform to the end thereof, where disaster befell plaintiff through the agency of a step to the ground, which he failed to observe, and of the presence of which the conductor did not warn him. The elevation of this platform above the ordinary surface of the ground was not over a foot, but a depression had been worn in the ground at the place where plaintiff stepped from the platform, and plaintiff received a hard fall that severely injured him. Defendant's witnesses contradict those for plaintiff in these particulars. They say that the brakeman's call for Langdon was: "Langdon; 20 minutes for supper at second stop." That defendant's station was well lighted inside and out so that the platform was sufficiently illuminated for the convenient use of its passengers. And that the Rockport platform was rendered reasonably safe so far as light was necessary by the lanterns in the car and that in the hand of the conductor and by the engine headlight. The conductor of the Rockport train denies that he spoke to plaintiff while the latter was on defendant's platform, and states that the first he knew of the presence of plaintiff was when he saw him among the transferring passengers on the Rockport platform. He noticed that plaintiff seemed bewildered; and, on inquiry, learned that he had become separated from his train. He then showed plaintiff the lights of his train, which then was standing at the restaurant platform, whereupon plaintiff hastened forward. The conductor called out a warning to him concerning the step, which was not heeded, and the fall resulted. From the photographs before us, as well as from the testimony, it appears that two ways were open to plaintiff to regain his train from the position he occupied when left on defendant's platform. He could have walked down the track, or crossed over to the east side and thence alongside the track to the restaurant. An...