Louisville, H. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Davis
| Decision Date | 03 February 1914 |
| Citation | 157 Ky. 239,162 S.W. 1124 |
| Parties | LOUISVILLE, H. & ST. L. RY. CO. v. DAVIS. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Henderson County.
Action by Annie Davis against the Louisville, Henderson & St. Louis Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Yeaman & Yeaman, of Henderson, R. A. Miller, of Owensboro, J. R Skillman, of Louisville, and Miller, Sandidge & Malin, of Owensboro, for appellant.
W. P McClain, of Henderson, for appellee.
On February 24, 1912, appellee, Annie Davis, was a passenger upon one of appellant's passenger trains, en route from Owensboro to Baskett, in Henderson county. The train arrived at her destination about 9 o'clock at night. Passenger trains on this road were accustomed to take on coal at a coal chute situated on the south side of the railroad, and just east of the station at Baskett. The depot platform was of cinders, and a cinder walk extended along the north side of the track, in an eastwardly direction, for a distance of some 200 yards from the station building. The distance from the lower step of a passenger coach to the ground is about 13 inches near the station building, but quite a little more than that between the coal chute and the public crossing, to which the cinder walk led. On the night in question, the engineer failed to stop the train immediately at the coal chute, so he backed up an appreciable distance in order to get the tender in position to receive coal from the chute. While the coal was being received, appellee alighted from the train. She testified that, when the train first stopped, she started to alight but was told by the conductor to wait; that, after the train backed a little and stopped again, she was invited by the conductor to descend from the train; that he carried her basket out of the car and placed it on the ground; that she followed immediately behind him; that it was very dark, and she expected to alight on the platform near the station building where she had many times before alighted, and where, as has been seen, the distance from the lower step to the ground is about 13 inches, but that the distance at the place where she did alight was 2 1/2 to 3 feet; and that as she stepped to the ground she wrenched the muscles of her back, hip, and leg. She sued appellant to recover damages for the suffering therefrom resulting. The jury returned a verdict in her favor for $400. The railroad company appeals, and seeks a reversal for error in the instructions.
Instructions Nos. 1 and 2 are as follows:
"The court instructs you that it was the duty of defendant's agents in charge of the train upon which plaintiff was riding as a passenger, at the time and place mentioned, to observe the highest degree of care, which prudent persons engaged in the same business are accustomed to observe under the same or similar circumstances, to enable the plaintiff to alight in safety from its car at the place of her destination, so if you shall believe from the evidence that defendant's said agents in charge of said train failed to use that degree of care to enable plaintiff to so alight in safety, but caused or invited her to alight at an unusual and unsafe place, if it was so, at or near the station mentioned, and that the plaintiff, while using ordinary care for her own safety in leaving said car, if she was using such care, was caused to or did step or fall to such an extent as to jar and injure the plaintiff, then in that event you should...
To continue reading
Request your trial