Riley v. Rhode Island Co.

• Decision Date: 10 April 1908
• Citation: 69 A. 338,29 R.I. 143
• Parties: RILEY v. RHODE ISLAND CO.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

69 A. 338

29 R.I. 143

RILEY

v. RHODE ISLAND CO.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

April 10, 1908.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence County.

Action by James P. Riley against the Rhode Island Company. Verdict for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions overruled, and cause remanded for judgment upon verdict.

Argued before DOUGLAS, C. J., and DUBOIS, BLODGETT, JOHNSON, and PARKHURST, JJ.

James A. Williams, for plaintiff. Henry W. Hayes and Alonzo R. Williams, for defendant.

DOUGLAS, C. J. On the 1st day of March, 1907, the plaintiff, in descending from a street car operated by the defendant, slipped from the step of the car and fell and was injured. A snowstorm had commenced the night before, and with intermissions of rain continued during that day. The average temperature until after the accident was below the freezing point. It appeared in evidence that before starting upon the trip on which the accident occurred the conductor had removed from the step such snow and ice as had accumulated there, but that, after starting from the terminus of the route, ice or snow had been deposited on the step by the feet of incoming passengers, and so remained in considerable mass when the plaintiff placed his foot upon it in alighting. He testifies that before stepping down he saw the snow and ice there, but used due care in descending. Upon these facts the superior court held that no negligence on the part of the defendant had been shown, and directed a verdict for the defendant. To this direction the plaintiff excepted, and the case is before us upon the bill of exceptions based thereon.

We think the verdict was rightly directed. The legal principles affecting the responsibility of a railroad company with respect to the removal of snow and ice from the platform and steps of its cars are well stated in Palmer v. Pennsylvania Co., 111 N. Y. 488, 493, 495, 18 N. E. 859, 861, 2 L. R. A. 252, where it is said by Ruger, C. J.: "The immediate and continuous removal of all snow and ice from such trains, or the covering of them with sand or ashes in such manner that no slippery places shall be at any time exposed, would be quite impracticable and beyond the duty which a railroad owes to its passengers. The presence of snow or ice upon exposed places on moving cars is an accident of the hour, and no ordinary diligence could, during the prevalence of a storm, wholly remove its effects from the places exposed to its action, so as to prevent accidents to heedless and inattentive travelers. A passenger on a railroad train has no right to assume that the effects of a continuous storm of snow, sleet, rain, or hail will be immediately and effectually removed from the exposed platform of the car while making its passage between stations, or the termini of its route, and it would be an obligation beyond a reasonable expectation of performance to require a railroad corporation to do so. * * * It is safe to say that such corporations should not be held responsible for the dangers produced by the elements until they have assumed a dangerous form, and they have had a reasonable opportunity to remove their effects." This case is approved in Kelly v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 112 N. Y. 443,...