Sargent v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 February 1893
• Citation: 21 S.W. 823,114 Mo. 348
• Parties: SARGENT v. ST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

21 S.W. 823

114 Mo. 348

SARGENT v. ST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

February 27, 1893.

CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS — NEGLIGENCE — PLEADING — INSTRUCTIONS — RAILROAD COMPANIES.

1. In an action against a railroad company for injuries to a passenger, caused by its alleged negligence in not lighting its station platform, defendant pleaded a general denial, and that the station was at a small place, having no lighted streets; that at the time of the accident there were lamps burning in the station house; and that the platform was of ample size and well constructed. Held proper to strike out the latter defense, since the matters therein pleaded could be shown under the general denial.

2. Where the negligence counted on by the plaintiff is the defendant's failure to light its platform properly, and its permitting mail bags to be thrown upon it, over which mail bags the plaintiff stumbled and fell, and the defendant counts upon contributory negligence, it is error to instruct the jury that it was not plaintiff's duty to anticipate obstructions on the platform; that she had the right to believe the platform was safe; and that, if she did not discover the mail bags, and the defendant's officers and servants failed to warn her of them, then she was not guilty of negligence.

3. Where mail bags are customarily thrown from the cars upon a certain platform over which passengers are expected to pass, it is the duty of the railroad company to guard against accidents caused by passengers stumbling over such bags in the dark, even though the bags are thrown out by postal clerks in the service of the post-office department.

Appeal from circuit court, Crawford county; C. C. Bland, Judge.

Action by Ellen E. Sargent against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company to recover for personal injuries. Plaintiff obtained judgment. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

E. D. Kenna and L. F. Parker, for appellant. E. Y. Mitchell and S. A. Haseltine, for respondent.

BLACK, C. J.

Plaintiff was a passenger on defendant's road from St. Louis to Cuba Junction on the night of the 18th October, 1888. In her effort to leave the station at the place of her destination, she stepped upon or against some mail bags, and was thereby thrown down and injured. The defendant answered by way of a general denial, contributory negligence, and, as a third defense, alleged that Cuba Junction was a small village, containing only 250 inhabitants; that it had but few streets, which were without lights of any kind; that at the time of the accident there were lamps burning in the station house; that the station house and platform thereto were ample for the business transacted at that place, and were constructed with as much care as was usual on well-regulated railroads. These and other like matters are set out at great detail. On motion of the plaintiff, the court struck out this third defense.

1. While it was the duty of the defendant to light its station and platform on the arrival and departure of trains, the character and extent of the lights must depend upon the character and extent of the business transacted at the particular place. As the village had no gas or electric lights, the defendant was not bound to supply its station with such lights. Lights which would be sufficient at a station like this would be wholly inadequate at a large station. All such circumstances were proper matters to place before the jury in solving the question whether the defendant failed to properly light the platform, but they are matters of evidence only, and not facts to be pleaded. All of the facts set out in this defense which have any relevancy whatever could be given in evidence under the general denial. The motion was therefore properly sustained.

2. The depot platform at Cuba is about 200 feet long, and is a substantial structure. There is no evidence showing or tending to show that it was out of repair or defective in construction. The train on which plaintiff was a passenger ran in from the east, and stopped about a car length further west than usual. With the assistance of the car porter, plaintiff got off the car at a point about six feet west of the west end of the station house. She then started east on the platform to the east end of it, where there was an omnibus in waiting. She had taken but a few steps when she stumbled over some mail bags lying in her pathway, which had been thrown from the postal car attached to the train. The witnesses all agree that it was a very dark night. There were no lights on the platform, save three or four lanterns, in the hands of persons who were moving about from place to place. There was a bay window to the station house, looking out on the platform, and two lighted lamps on the inside, but these lamps gave no light on the platform, because of the window shades. The evidence tends to show that the car window blinds were also closed, so that there was little or no light from the car. It appears three or four other persons came in on the same car. A Mr. Lewis and his wife were in advance of the plaintiff. He stumbled over the bags, but he says he was looking towards the omnibus, and not where he was stepping. His wife seems to have seen the bags just as he stumbled. He says he passed on, and then turned around and saw Mrs. Sargent fall, and that he could see the bags from where he was then standing. Another lady, who got off at the east end of the station house, says she waited for the crowd to get away; that she saw the sacks; that it was lighter sometimes than at others, but she could see the sacks at all times. The plaintiff had a basket in her hand, and two or three small bundles, at the time she fell. Objections are made to some of the eight or nine instructions given at the request of the plaintiff, because they do not properly define the duty of the defendant or that of the plaintiff. To an understanding of these objections, we set out the instructions, omitting the recitals that plaintiff was a passenger on the train: "(1) If the plaintiff started the usual way across said platform to the hotel bus, it was not her duty, while so going to the hotel bus, to expect and anticipate obstructions on the platform." "(6) If the plaintiff, in attempting to go to the bus, east of the depot, did not discover the mail bags on the platform, which she had the right to believe was safe and free from obstructions, and the officers and servants of said defendant company failed to warn her of such obstructions, and she fell over the same, and injured herself, then she was not guilty of such negligence as would prevent her recovering in this cause, and your verdict will be for plaintiff, provided you further find that the platform was not sufficiently lighted to enable plaintiff to have seen and avoided the obstruction by the use of customary care on her part." (7) This instruction states, among other things, that the plaintiff "had the right to assume that the platform was unobstructed." "(8) If the mail bags were permitted to remain upon said platform in the passageway to said bus, and plaintiff was tripped up by them, and fell upon said platform, and was injured, and before she fell she did not see said mail bags, and had no warning that the said mail bags were in the...