Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Berry, &C.
| Decision Date | 07 February 1889 |
| Parties | Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Berry, &c. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
The appellee Berry, a boy about fourteen years of age, at the instance of Mrs. McGee, with whom he lived and by whom he was controlled, accompanied a lady and her child to the depot of the defendant, to aid her in boarding the train. It was after night, and dark when the train approached. The platform from which passengers get on and off the train lies between the two tracks of the railway, and is about four feet wide, with the edge of the cars when they reach the platform extending over it some four or five inches. After the boy had reached the platform and the lady had entered the car, the boy on leaving the platform stepped with one foot into a hole that had been caused by the rottening of the plank, causing the appellee to fall, with one leg protruding, under the wheels of the cars as they moved off, crushing his ankle and foot in such a manner as required his leg to be amputated. That the company knew of the defect in the platform, or by the exercise of ordinary care should have known it. He claimed and was awarded compensatory damages for the injury sustained. The case went to the Superior Court and was there affirmed, and an appeal was then prayed and granted to this court.
The boy testifies as to the fall caused by the defect in the platform and the injury received. The hole in the platform at the place where the boy says he was injured was visible, and caused by the decay of the timber; blood was seen near the place where the injury occurred, and he was carried from the spot by those who heard his cries of distress in that direction.
The foot or ankle was crushed as the train moved off. That the platform was much out of repair and had been for a long time, is sustained by the weight of the testimony, and the injury to this boy caused by this defect in the platform, that should have been observed and remedied by the defendant's employes. We are satisfied from the testimony that the injury resulted from the causes alleged in the petition, but the appellant, in making out its defense, insisted on proving by the appellee and others that he was in the habit of jumping on the cars when they stopped at the station, and had been warned of the danger, and hence the jury had the right to infer that it was the...
To continue reading
Request your trial