Reynolds v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company
| Decision Date | 09 January 1912 |
| Citation | 142 S.W. 1097,162 Mo.App. 618 |
| Parties | WILLIAM A. REYNOLDS, Respondent, v. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Cape Girardeau Court of Common Pleas.--Hon. R. G Ranney, Judge.
REVERSED.
Judgment reversed.
S. H West, Roy F. Britton and Wammack & Welborn for appellant.
(1) Negligence consists in the violation of some duty having regard to the relation between the parties, to time, place and circumstances. Henry v. Railroad, 76 Mo. 288; Richmond v. Railroad, 133 Mo.App. 463; Dowd v Railroad, 20 L. R. A. (Wis.) 532; Carr v. Railroad, 195 Mo. 214. (2) Appellant owed no duty to the plaintiff. Stroub v. Soderer, 53 Mo. 42; Wencker v. Railroad, 169 Mo. 592; Heinlein v. Railroad, 147 Mass. 136; Severy v. Nickerson, 120 Mass. 306; Faris v. Hoberg, 134 Ind. 269; Parker v. Pub. Co., 69 Me. 173; O'Bryan v. Steel Co., 100 Mo. 182; Railroad v. Laloge, 113 Ky. 896, 62 L. R. A. 405; Railroad v. Griggs (Tex.), 106 S.W. 411. (3) The duty of a railroad company to light its premises is complied with if it keeps them lighted for a reasonable time before and until after the departure of its night passenger trains. Waller v. Railroad, 59 Mo.App. 429; Sargent v. Railroad, 114 Mo. 348; Railroad v. Griggs, 106 S.W. 411; Railroad v. Laloge, 62 L. R. A. 405; R. S. 1899, Sec. 1075; Thompson on Negligence, sec. 2691; White's Sup. to Thompson on Negligence, 2695. (4) Under the evidence in this case, no liability attaches to the appellant from the mere fact that these trucks were at the place where they were when plaintiff fell over them. Waller v. Railroad, 59 Mo.App. 410; Hesselbach v. St. Louis, 179 Mo. 505; Walthers v. Railroad, 78 Mo. 617; Binicker v. Railroad, 83 Mo. 660.
M. A. Dempsey and T. D. Hines for respondent.
(1) One who goes upon the premises of a railway company to transact business with it or its agents, or to transact business in the operation of the road, or who is there by invitation of the company, express or implied, is lawfully there, and the railroad company owes him a duty of exercising ordinary care in the construction and maintenance of its depots and platforms, to avoid injuring him. Bennett v. Railroad, 102 U.S. 577; 1 Fetter, Carriers of Passengers, secs. 46, 236, 239. The following cases illustrate the foregoing proposition as to the persons included within its protection: Lowenstein v. Railroad, 119 S.W. 430; Lowenstein v. Railroad, 117 Mo.App. 371; Spotts v. Railroad, 111 Mo. 380; Winscott v. Railroad, 131 S.W. 749; Evans v. Railroad, 130 Mo.App. 509; Henry v. Disbrow, 128 S.W. 841; Schaaf v. Box Co., 131 S.W. 939; Moore v. Railroad, 84 Mo. 481; Strafford v. Railroad, 22 Mo.App. 333; Hole v. Railroad, 60 Vt. 605; Bradford v. Railroad, 59 Me. 183; Holmes v. Railroad, L. R. 4 Exch. 254; Shelby v. Railroad, 85 Ky. 224; Coggswell v. Railroad, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 837; Railroad v. Jandera, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 535. And the following cases are authority as to the places and objects requiring the exercise of such care: 1 Fetter, sec. 52; Lucas v. Railroad, 120 Ind. 205; Railroad v. Lucas, 110 Ind. 583; Clussman v. Railroad, 9 Hun, 73 N.Y. 606; Peniston v. Railroad, 34 La. Ann. 777; Railroad v. Evans, 52 Neb. 50; Collins v. Railroad, 80 Mich. 390; Skottowe v. Oregon, 22 Ore. 430; Railroad v. Watson, 94 Ala. 634; Exton v. Railroad, 63 N. J. L. 356; Winkler v. Railroad, 21 Mo.App. 99; Bethmann v. Railroad, 152 Mass. 352. (2) The railway company is liable for negligent handling of appliances by persons not in its employ, but who are permitted to use such appliances. White, Personal Injuries, sec. 629; Mangan v. Railroad (N.C.), 58 N.E. 913, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 589. And for negligence of mail clerks throwing mail bags on the platform. Sargent v. Railroad, 116 Mo. 348; Railroad v. Sims, 43 Ill.App. 260; Carpenter v. Railroad, 97 N.Y. 494; Snow v. Railroad, 136 Mass. 552.
This action was originally brought by plaintiff, respondent here, against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company, hereafter referred to as the Frisco. Afterwards by amendment the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company, hereafter called the Cotton Belt, was made a party defendant along with the Frisco. The amended petition avers that defendants are engaged in operating their lines of railroad through the village of Delta, at which point these railroads cross the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern, hereafter referred to as the Iron Mountain. It is further averred that at this station of Delta "each defendant at all the times herein mentioned, maintained a depot with platform and passages in connection therewith communicating from one depot to the other for the use and convenience of passengers and others having lawful business to transact there with either or both of defendants." It is also averred in the petition that the general direction of the main track of each defendant is from the northeast to the southwest paralleling each other, the tracks of the Cotton Belt lying about 200 feet east of those of the Frisco, the petition avers, but it appears by the plat in evidence and the testimony that in point of fact the tracks of the Cotton Belt are 245 feet almost directly south of those of the Frisco, the tracks of the Iron Mountain intersecting both of said tracks at right angles. It also appears in evidence that the station or depot of the Frisco is alongside of and south of its tracks, separated from the tracks by a platform or passageway apparently between seventeen and twenty feet wide. The Iron Mountain and the Cotton Belt occupy the same station, which is situate in the angle formed by the crossing of those two roads, and is a little over 200 feet south of the Frisco station. The part of the station used by the Cotton Belt lies alongside of its tracks and to the north of them and between the tracks and station is the platform; that part used by the Iron Mountain lies alongside of its tracks and to the east of them, being between the station and the tracks. Commencing south of and in front of the Cotton Belt end of the station this platform or passageway runs west in front of and the length of the Cotton Belt's part of the depot and between it and the Cotton Belt tracks to where the tracks of the Iron Mountain cross the Cotton Belt and then turns north at a right angle and runs north and along the east side of and beyond the Iron Mountain depot to where the Frisco crosses the Iron Mountain and then takes off at a right angle and runs east between the Frisco depot and its tracks. The passageway is continuous from in front of the Cotton Belt along the Iron Mountain and the Frisco. It is built on the top of the dumps or fills which are from three to five feet high and which constitute the roadbeds upon which the tracks of these several roads are constructed through this locality, the roads there running through low, swampy ground. The top or surface of these dumps so used as a passageway, is composed of chert, or, as called by the witnesses, "chat," rendering the whole surface hard and fairly smooth. There is no division line between the several parts, but a witness testified that they were distinguishable, as that part constructed by the Frisco was white, while that constructed by the Iron Mountain was blue or darkish.
The amended petition, after describing these platforms, but not as particularly as we have done, proceeds to aver "that the said platform or passageway at their said depots (referring to the Frisco and Cotton Belt), and between their said depots is and was at all times herein mentioned, under the mutual reciprocal control and management of defendants and is and was used by passengers arriving and departing, and arranging for arriving and departing, and by persons having other business to transact with said defendants there, and that all these conditions existed on and prior to the 18th day of February, A. D. 1909." It is further averred in the petition that on the above mentioned date, plaintiff arrived at this station of Delta by the Cotton Belt as a passenger on a train of that road (at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon according to the evidence), and that having left his baggage temporarily at the Cotton Belt depot he proceeded along the passageway mentioned to the depot of the Frisco and thence across the tracks of that road to a hotel there situated for the purpose of securing hotel accommodations, plaintiff intending to depart by a train of the Frisco scheduled to leave Delta early the following morning; that in passing along the passageway he found no obstacles or obstructions in his way; that by the time he had secured his hotel accommodations and eaten his supper it had grown dark and he attempted to return along the platform or passageway "of defendants" to the depot of the Cotton Belt for the purpose of getting his baggage which he had checked there and placing the same in the depot of the Frisco and there checking it in readiness for his departure on the following morning; that the passageway was unlighted, the night very dark and he was unable to distinguish objects, but knowing of no danger and while proceeding along the passageway he suddenly and unexpectedly struck with force and violence against an obstruction standing on this passage way, so used by passengers and the public and there fell, having struck his legs between the knees and ankles on a sharp object which he afterwards found was the end of a hand-truck used by the servants of defendants in handling baggage; that he was injured thereby and shocked by the unexpected fall and suffered great pain, but was able to go to the hotel and the next morning took the train of the Frisco railroad; that on the day following his...
To continue reading
Request your trial