Rodick v. Me. Cent. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 December 1912
• Citation: 109 Me. 530,85 A. 41
• Parties: RODICK v. MAINE CENT. R. CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

85 A. 41

109 Me. 530

RODICK

v. MAINE CENT. R. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 4, 1912.

On Motion and Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Hancock County, at Law.

Action by Elizabeth M. Rodick against the Maine Central Railroad Company.Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings the case up on motion and exceptions.Motion and exceptions overruled.

Argued before WHITEHOUSE, C. J., and SAVAGE, SPEAR, CORNISH, KING, and HALEY, JJ.

Deasy & Lynam, of Bar Harbor, for plaintiff.

Hale & Hamlin, of Elkworth, and Forrest Goodwin, of Skowhegan, for defendant.

CORNISH, J.On the evening of February 8, 1911, the plaintiff, a passenger on a steamboat of the defendant company, landed at its wharf in Bar Harbor, and, while passing along and upon the wharf on her way to take a public conveyance, slipped upon ice, fell, and was seriously injured.She obtained a verdict of $4,830, and the defendant has brought the case to this court on motion and exceptions.

Motion.

The wharf of the defendant company corresponded to the station grounds of a railroad for the arrival and departure of passengers.It covered considerable space; a portion being used for the passenger station, a portion for the freight station, and the rest for passengers on foot, or for conveyances, which were permitted to drive upon the wharf.The usual course of passenger travel from an incoming steamer was up the slip beneath an awning toward the passenger station, and then around the corner of the station and along a walk 12 feet wide running beside the station, with a railing or guard on the outer side.This walk led off the wharf to the public highway; and outside this railing carriages, public and private, were allowed to drive upon the wharf to bring and carry away passengers.A space of about 4 or 5 feet in width, slightly raised, next the rail formed a buffer against which the rear wheels of the carriages rested.At the end of the railing, near the corner of the station, was an electric light pole.At various places there were openings in the railing to enable passengers to pass through and reach their carriages.Between the end of the railing at the electric light pole, near the northwest corner of the passenger station, across to the freight station, was no guard or railing to prevent a passenger going directly to a team; and teams were permitted to wait at that portion of the wharf.In the summer a barrier, in the form of a chain, was stretched across from the light pole to one of the posts supporting the awning to prevent such travel; but this was not used in the winter.

The plaintiff, on the evening in question, had reached a point near the light pole, when she suddenly slipped on ice and fell.The sharp issue of fact submitted to the jury in the charge was the precise spot where she fell; the case apparently having been tried upon the theory that if she was injured upon the passenger walk, or within that portion of the wharf set apart for passenger travel, the defendant company would be liable, while if she was injured at a point a few feet outside, where she may have gone to take a team, the company would be free from liability.A large number of witnesses on both sides testified as to the exact spot where she fell, and where she was found after the fall; and upon the issue submitted the jury must have found that the plaintiff's contention was correct.The evidence is conflicting; but we cannot say, after carefully studying and comparing it, that the finding on this point is so manifestly wrong as to be set aside.Were the question before the court without the verdict of a jury, we might conclude that the plaintiff, when she reached the pole, instead of turning to the left and following the sidewalk, took a step or two to the right to reach her team.But we are not prepared to say that even then the company would be free from blame.It knew the situation.It permitted teams to drive upon that portion of the wharf and wait for passengers; and it might naturally expect these passengers would be obliged to take a few steps beyond the sidewalk to reach the waiting teams.No rail or chain at that point suggested a barrier.No sign warned passengers not to proceed to the teams.On the contrary, the situation was such as to imply an invitation.This was not a public highway in which the teams were waiting, and over which the defendant would have neither control nor responsibility.It was the defendant's private property, devoted to the use of the public; and it was bound, in law, to use due care toward passengers upon it.Keefe v. B. & A. R. R. Co., 142 Mass. 251, 7 N. E. 874.

The plaintiff's fall was due to a condition for which the defendant was responsible.A heavy snow had fallen on the preceding day.A portion of it had been removed from the wharf, and the sidewalk had been scraped.But the evidence leads to the conclusion that ice had been allowed to remain at points both on the walk and just outside it; and no attempt was made to remove or sand it until after the accident.

Upon this branch of the case—the want of due care on the part of the defendant—the verdict should not be disturbed.

Nor are we able to discover any want of due care on the part of the plaintiff.Her conduct was that of the ordinarily prudent woman under similar circumstances.She was walking along in the usual way, as were the other passengers from the same steamer; and it was not incumbent upon her to keep her eyes fastened on the surface of the wharf to discover ice.She had a right to assume that the defendant had provided a reasonably safe place for her to pass over; and had she looked she would have discovered nothing, because the ice was concealed by a slight covering of snow, which made it still more treacherous.

The motion cannot be sustained.

Exceptions.

1.The first exception lies to the admission of two photographs of the locus, introduced by the plaintiff against the defendant's objection.These were taken in the fall after the accident, and their admissibility is challenged because the plaintiff appears in the photographs as standing in the place in which she claims to have fallen; that spot being, as we have already said, a sharply controverted point.

This...