Metts v. Louisville & N. R. Co, 24879.

• Decision Date: 28 October 1935
• Docket Number: No. 24879.,24879.
• Citation: 52 Ga.App. 115,182 S.E. 531
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Parties: METTS. v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. et al.

52 Ga.App. 115

182 S.E. 531

METTS.

v.LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. et al.

No. 24879.

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 2.

Oct. 28, 1935.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 16, 1935.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; John D. Humphries, Judge.

Petition by Mrs. H. L. Metts against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company and others. To review a judgment sustaining a general demurrer to her petition, plaintiff brings error.

Reversed.

Carl F. Hutcheson and Robt. B. Blackburn, both of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Neely, Marshall & Greene and W. Neal Baird, all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

SUTTON, Judge.

Plaintiff was a passenger on a train operated by the defendants from Augusta to Atlanta. She was accompanied by two minor children, whose fare was paid. Upon arriving at her destination, and the train stopping, the conductor called, "All out for Atlanta, " and plaintiff and her children prepared to alight from the train. When plaintiff then attempted to disembark from the car and on reaching the last step leading from the vestibule to the platform of the depot, the same being about three feet above the platform, which was too great a distance for her to make in one step or stride, but which she did not know, and plaintiff having with her a three year old child at the time, she missed her footing, stepped into mid air, stumbled, and fell to the platform. The injuries sued for resulted. Plaintiff alleges that it was the duty of the defendants, she being a paid passenger and they being common carriers for hire, to furnish her with adequate facilities to disembark from the train and with a safe place to alight therefrom; that the defendants should have had an employee at the place to assist her in getting off said train or should have placed a stool under the step for her to step upon in getting off; that she relied upon the defendants to perform this duty; and that as a result of their failure so to do she was injured, which failure she charges as negligence. The court sustained a general demurrer, and to this judgment plaintiff excepts. Held:

1. A railroad company is bound to exercise extraordinary diligence toward a passenger while he is in the act of alighting from the train. Southern Ry. Co. v. Reeves, 116 Ga. 743(4), 42 S. E. 1015. The liability of a carrier of passengers begins at the starting point, and does not end until the passenger is discharged. Brunswick & Western R. Co. v. Moore, 101 Ga. 684, 28 S. E. 1000. It is the duty of a railroad company to provide at its stations suitable, sufficient, and reasonably safe means to enable passengers to alight from cars without danger. Daniels v. Western & A. R. Co., 96 Ga. 786, 22 S. E. 956; Mize v. Southern Ry. Co., 15 Ga. App. 265, 82 S. E. 925; Central Railroad v. Thompson, 76 Ga. 770. See, also, Central R. & Banking Co. v. Perry, 58 Ga. 461(3); Central Railroad v. Whitehead, 74 Ga. 441, 443; Atlanta Consol. St. Ry. Co. v. Bates, 103 Ga. 333(2), 347, 30 S. E. 41; Wilkes v. Western & A. R. Co, 109 Ga. 794, 35 S. E. 165.

When, upon a train coming to a stop at the plaintiff's destination, the conductor called, "All out for Atlanta, " this indicated that the conductor was ready for the plaintiff to disembark from the car and she had a right to assume that a safe place for her to alight had been furnished by the defendants. Central Railroad v. Thompson, supra.

2. Ordinarily, there is no duty upon a carrier to assist a passenger in boarding or alighting from its train. Western & A. R. Co. v. Earwood, 104 Ga. 127, 29 S. E. 913; Southern Ry. Co. v. Reeves, supra; Southern Ry. Co. v. Hobbs, 118 Ga. 227, 45 S. E. 23, 63 L. R. A. 68; Tucker v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co, 122 Ga. 387, 50 S. E. 128; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Madden, 135 Ga. 205, 69 S. E. 165, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 813, 21 Ann. Cas. 1077; Georgia & F. R. Co. v. Thigpen, 141 Ga. 90, 80 S. E. 626; Southern Ry. Co. v. Wright, 6 Ga. App. 172, 64 S. E. 703; Mize v. Southern Ry. Co., supra.

(a) Whether in a given case the circumstances are such as to suggest the necessity of assisting a passenger to board or alight from a train or car is a question to be determined by the jury. Southern Ry. Co. v. Reeves, supra; Southern Ry. Co. v. Wright, supra; Southern Ry. Co. v. Crabb, 10 Ga. App. 559, 73 S. E. 859; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Madden, supra; Georgia R. & Banking Co. v. Rives, 137 Ga. 376, 73 S. E. 645, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 564.

(b) Where the means afforded for boarding or alighting are inadequate or unsafe, the carrier is bound to assist passengers in boarding or alighting. 55 A. L. R. 398, note; Mize v. Southern Ry. Co, supra. When the steps of a car are unreasonably high from the ground, and a brakeman of the carrier knows it and perceives the need of assistance to a female passenger, it becomes his duty to assist her without a request. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Bowman, 208 Ky. 39, 270 S. W. 471. So where it appeared that insufficient facilities were af--forded a woman passenger in alighting, there being no box or stool provided, and the car step being a high one, the question whether...