Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Aldridge

• Decision Date: 29 October 1901
• Citation: 61 N.E. 741,27 Ind.App. 498
• Parties: PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO. v. ALDRIDGE.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

27 Ind.App. 498

61 N.E. 741

PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO.

v.ALDRIDGE.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 2.

Oct. 29, 1901.

Appeal from circuit court, Clark county; J. K. Marsh, Judge.

Action by John Aldridge against the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.S. Stansifer and M. Z. Stannard, for appellant. Burtt & Taggart, for appellee.

ROBY, J.

This action was brought by appellee against the appellant, a common carrier of passengers, to recover damages on account of injury alleged to have been caused by its negligence in failing to remove accumulated ice and snow from the platform of a car in which appellee was transported from Louisville, Ky., to Ohio Falls, Ind. A general verdict for $500 in favor of appellee was returned, with answers to interrogatories. Motions for judgment notwithstanding the general verdict and for a new trial were overruled, and judgment rendered upon the verdict.

The negligence relied upon is charged in the following terms: “That on the 30th day of January, 1899, and prior to the time plaintiff entered defendant's car as aforesaid, it had been raining and snowing, and the weather on said day being cold and freezing. The defendant carelessly, negligently, and without plaintiff's knowledge allowed snow and water to accumulate and freeze on the steps of said car, rendering the same slippery, dangerous, and unsafe on account of said snow and water freezing on the steps of said car on which plaintiff was riding.” The jury, in answer to interrogatories, without conflict find facts as follows: Appellant ran its cars from Fourteenth street to New Albany and intermediate points every half hour. An interval of 10 minutes intervened between the departure and arrival of trains. Ohio Falls was distant from Fourteenth street 5,000 feet and “four squares.” The time occupied between the points was six or seven minutes. The appellee took passage on a train containing two passenger cars. He got on at the rear end of the rear car. It had been snowing “recently before plaintiff boarded said train.” The rear steps of said coach were slippery, because of snow and freezing, when he boarded said coach. The rear platform was not slippery at that time. Additional snow and ice accumulated on the steps while the car was being run to Ohio Falls. The rear steps were slippery, because of snow and ice, when he left the car at Ohio Falls. The rear platform was not. He had ridden on appellant's trains almost daily for 10 or 12 years prior to that time. He was familiar with its method of operating its trains, and with its rules for discharging its passengers. It was the practice of its conductors to be at the front end of the rear car at Ohio Falls, to assist passengers on and off the train. Appellee knew of the custom. The conductor was at such place at the time appellee alighted. It was not the custom to have an employé at the rear end of the coach, and none was there. The station was announced by the brakeman, who, while doing so, walked towards the front end of the car. The appellee, when the station was announced, got up, and walked to the rear end of the car. After the train stopped, he went on the rear platform, and was in the act of getting off, when he fell. The place at which he alighted was not on the cinder platform provided by appellant, but several feet south of the south end. The presumption of negligence which arises against the carrier when injury is suffered by one passively relying upon it to transport him to his destination does not exist where the voluntary movement of the passenger contributed to the injury complained of. Pennsylvania Co. v. Marion, 104 Ind. 239, 241, 3 N. E. 874; Dressler v. Railroad Co., 19 Ind. App. 383, 385, 47 N. E. 651;Fearn v. Ferry Co. (Pa. Sup.) 13 L. R. A. 366. Appellant was not responsible for the storm. It was not required to prevent snow falling upon the steps of its car. In certain seasons and times the presence of ice and snow upon such exposed places is unavoidable. The allegation of the complaint quoted means that appellant neglected to remove the...