Moses v. Louisville, New Orleans and Texas Railroad Company

• Decision Date: 01 May 1887
• Docket Number: 9858
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: ALEXANDER MOSES v. LOUISVILLE, NEW ORLEANS AND TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY

2 So. 567

39 La.Ann. 649

ALEXANDER MOSES v. LOUISVILLE, NEW ORLEANS AND TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY

No. 9858

Supreme Court of Louisiana

May 1, 1887

APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Lazarus, J.

D. C. &amp L. L. Labatt for Plaintiff and Appellee.

Farrar & Kruttschnitt for Defendant and Appellant.

POCHE J. FENNER, J., dissents.

OPINION

POCHE J.

Plaintiff claims damages in the sum of $ 20,000 for personal injuries received by him while boarding a train of the defendant company, at the city of Vicksburg, Miss during the night of January 14, 1885; which he attributes to the negligence and want of care of the defendant and of its employees.

The defense is a general denial, a special denial of negligence on the part of the company, and a charge of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff.

The jury found in favor of plaintiff, to whom they allowed $ 1000 damages. Defendant appeals, and plaintiff prays for an increase of the allowance for damages in the sum of $ 7000.

The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:

Plaintiff, who is a resident of New Orleans, purchased a ticket at the defendant's office in Vicksburg, from that point through to this city, to be used at the date above stated, on a train leaving Vicksburg at 9 o'clock at night. Within twenty minutes of train time he reached the station or depot of the company, and remained with a companion who was to make the same trip, in a waiting-room within the building used as a passenger station, until the arrival of the train.

That building is situated at the northwestern corner of a square of ground owned and occupied by the company for its purposes as a common carrier. The south-bound trains enter the depot yard at the intersection of two streets known as Levee and Depot streets; the first of which runs north and south, and the latter east and west. Down to that point the railroad track is on Levee street, and thence it diverges from that street, in a southeastern course, into the square of ground owned by the company. The depot yard, which is bounded on the west by Levee street, and on the north by Depot street, is enclosed by a fence, leaving at the junction of the two streets an opening through which the trains enter into the yard. On Levee street the fence extends from the station-house, which fronts thereon, to the intersection of Depot street. The depot yard, which is on both sides of the track, is usually approached by passengers, either on Depot or Levee streets, through gates provided for the purpose; the Levee street gate being situated near the station-house. It was at that gate that plaintiff and his companion alighted from a carriage, and through it they walked into the depot yard and into the waiting-room or ticket office, which opens into the yard in the rear or east end of the building used as a station. The depot yard, on that side of the railroad track, is a wooden platform, several feet above the ground or level of the adjoining streets, and extending as far as the street proper on Levee street, the sidewalk being of the same grade and of the same material; and marked out of, or separated from, the railroad yard proper by the fence above described -- and ending on to the Depot street corner. The construction of the sidewalk by the railroad company, as well as its dimensions and grade, were stipulated in a contract between the city council of Vicksburg and the company.

Now, it happens, owing to the length of some of the trains, when going southward, that one, and sometimes two, of the passenger coaches are stopped and left standing outside of the depot yard, across Depot street, and that on the night of the accident to plaintiff the sleeping car, which was the last coach of the train, was entirely outside of the yard. And it was in his attempt to reach that coach, with a view to secure accommodations for the night, that plaintiff met with the accident on which he predicates his claim.

As he stepped out of the waiting-room on the arrival of the train, he saw that the sleeper was at the end of the train, and walking towards it he passed out of the gate herein above described near the station, to the sidewalk and on the latter, at the end of which he fell to the ground and broke one of his legs.

From that period of the case, all other facts bearing on the issues involved are hotly contested, and the truth must be sought out of a mass of conflicting testimony.

Our reading of the record has satisfied us that the preponderance of the evidence shows:

That the principal cause of the accident must be attributed to the lack of sufficient light to guide the passengers in their efforts to board the train, and that it was owing to the darkness which prevailed that plaintiff fell off the sidewalk.

The effect of a city gas-light, situated on Depot street, at the left side fence of the yard, was entirely lost to persons who were on the right hand side of the train, by the sleeper which stood in its way and entirely out of the depot yard; and the railroad lamps, in which oil was burned, and which were situated immediately around the station-house, were not strong enough to be of any use to persons walking to the rear of the train on the sidewalk.

But at this point and in this connection must be noted the charge of contributory negligence made against plaintiff by the defendant, who says that the usual and the safe mode of boarding its trains was to walk directly east from the waiting-room to the track, only a short distance, then to ascend the steps of the first coach in the way, and thence to walk through two or more coaches, as the case might be, to the sleeper, in case the passenger desired sleeping accommodations; and that the existence of the fence above described was a sufficient indication of the extent of the depot grounds, and a sufficient caution to passengers not to venture outside if they wished to avail themselves of the company's protection. It is also urged that the city sidewalk from which plaintiff fell, was no part of the company's platform, that the company had no control over the same, and was therefore not responsible for any accident which might occur thereon or therefrom.

The first answer to that contention is found in the record, which shows that plaintiff who had never before been at the place, and had arrived there for the first time on a dark night, with very dim lights to guide his steps, was not aware of the distribution of the road's appliances and facilities, and that no employee or servant of the company offered to instruct or guide him in the proper course to pursue. Hence he cannot be considered as negligent or legally imprudent in following the route which in his judgment was the safest and the shortest for the purpose of reaching the sleeper which was his objective point.

The second answer comes also from the record which shows that passengers approached and left the trains indifferently on either side of them; it appears that the driver of the hack brought plaintiff and his companion, without instructions from them, or either of them, to the sidewalk in question; and that carriage drivers, watching for customers on the arrival of trains, stood on either side, of the depot yard, the very hackman who helped to raise plaintiff after his accident was standing on that side with his carriage in expectation of customers.

From our understanding of the contract between the city and the company as to the construction of the sidewalk, we consider that the defendant is under the legal obligation to keep it in good order and repair as one of the approaches to its station. It is used by the company to receive all baggage, whether going to or coming from trains, and an inclined platform connects it with the street below, at the gate through which plaintiff went in and out of the depot-yard on the night of the accident. It is clear to our minds that the defendant would be responsible for any injury occasioned on that sidewalk by reason of a rotten plank, to any of its passengers, either going to or leaving one of its trains. It is indeed used by it as one of its appurtenances.

But in law and in justice, why should this company be heard to charge negligence, imprudence or recklessness to any of its passengers for going out of its inclosures to reach the coach which he desires, when that coach itself is out of the company's yard, and actually intercepts the street which crosses at that point? From the description which we have already given of the grounds, it is undeniable that if a coach of the company had not stood in Depot street, the city gaslight, the best and the only gaslight on and around the grounds, would have been amply sufficient to lighten the sidewalk, separated from it only by the train, and it is as clear that if the sleeper had stood within the depot yard plaintiff would have gone directly to it, without going outside of the yard; and in either case the accident would not have occurred. Hence, the conclusion is inevitable that the accident is solely attributable to the fact that the sleeping car was not pulled inside of the yard; and that in consequence of its standing in the way of the city gaslight, it deprived the depot and its approaches of the light necessary to securely guide the passengers who desired to take the train, and to occupy that identical coach. It is not...