Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Ricketts

• Decision Date: 02 October 1894
• Citation: 27 S.W. 860,96 Ky. 44
• Parties: LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. RICKETTS.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

27 S.W. 860

96 Ky. 44

LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. RICKETTS.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 2, 1894

Appeal from circuit court, Marion county.

"To be officially reported."

Action by A. P. Ricketts against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company for injuries. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

W. J Lisle, Thompson & McChord, and H. W. Bruce, for appellant.

John D Fogle, Sam Avritt, and J. D. Belden, for appellee.

LEWIS J.

Appellee brought this action to recover of appellant damages for personal injury done under the following circumstances: Being a passenger on a railroad train that arrived from Louisville at Lebanon, the place of his destination, about 11 p. m., he instead of getting from it upon the depot platform on the left, descended to the ground on the right side of the track where there were no lights kept, or other arrangement made for reception of passengers; and in going towards the street usually traveled to and from the depot he stumbled over an unseen water box, and, falling, he was so close to the railroad track that his left arm extended across one of the rails, and was run over and badly injured by the wheels of the train, then moving away from the depot. On the first trial the plaintiff recovered a verdict, but upon appeal to this court the judgment was reversed (see 19 S.W. 182), and the case is again before us for revision of a second verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

In the former opinion of this court it was held that where a railroad company "has a platform and other facilities for entering and leaving the cars with safety on the depot side of the track, the failure to have the opposite likewise prepared as a place for entering and leaving the cars cannot be regarded as negligence. It may select and adhere to such arrangement of its depot and platforms as it may see fit, if those made are safe and commodious." This further language was used in the opinion: "Here the company's platform was on the left-hand side of the track, and it was safe and commodious and well lighted, and the appellee, by the use of ordinary prudence, could have left the cars and depot grounds with reasonable safety had he taken the platform side; but he preferred to leave the cars by the right-hand side of the track, where there were no platform and no lights, and, the company not being bound to erect a platform on that side, and keep it lighted in the...