St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Person

• Decision Date: 04 June 1887
• Parties: ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. <I>v.</I> PERSON.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

4 S.W. 755

ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO.

v. PERSON.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

June 4, 1887.

Appeal from circuit court, Pulaski county.

The complaint charged that on December 25, 1884, plaintiff was a passenger on defendant's train on his journey from Little Rock to his home at Mablevale;

that the conductor of the train failed to stop his train at Mablevale a sufficient length of time to enable plaintiff to get off safely, but at the same time pressed and urged the plaintiff to get off while the train was in motion; and by reason of the darkness of the night, and the train having passed the platform, plaintiff, in getting off, fell and broke his leg; whereby he suffered great pain, etc., to his damage $5,000. The answer denied specifically all of the allegations of the complaint, and charged contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

The court gave the three following declarations of law, over defendant's objections, properly saved, to-wit: "(2) The court instructs the jury that if they believe, from the evidence in the cause, that the plaintiff, at the time stated in his complaint, had purchased from the defendant company a ticket from Little Rock to Mablevale station, and entered its regular passenger train for the purpose of being carried there, and that said Mablevale was a regular station upon the line of railway, where passengers are accustomed to get on and off its trains, then it was the duty of the conductor of such train to stop the cars at said station, and keep them at a stand-still a reasonable length of time, sufficient to enable the plaintiff to leave the cars in safety. And if the jury further believe, from the evidence in this cause, that the conductor failed to comply with his duty in that behalf, and that, by reason of such failure, the plaintiff, while attempting to get off such train at said station, was injured, without any contributory negligence on his part, the defendant is liable therefor, and the jury should find for the plaintiff. And the court further instructs the jury that if they believe, from the evidence in this cause, that upon arriving at said station the train was stopped, but, before the plaintiff was able to alight therefrom, the train was started up again, and that the plaintiff was ordered by the conductor to get off, and under such directions attempted to do so while the train was going slow, and the danger of so doing was not apparent, the plaintiff had a right to rely upon the conductor's judgment, and his obeying such direction was not such contributory negligence as would bar his recovery. (3) If the jury find, from the evidence, that the plaintiff was ordered or directed by the conductor or agent of the defendant to get off the train, he had a right to rely upon such advice or direction, provided he took no more risk in getting off the train than a prudent man would have taken under the same circumstances. (4) If the jury find that the plaintiff took no more risk than a prudent man would under the circumstances, he was not guilty of contributory negligence."

The court gave several instructions as asked by defendant, only one of which we here copy, to-wit: "(1) If the jury believe, from the evidence, that the plaintiff jumped off the train after it had begun to move away from the station at Mablevale, and the night was so dark that he could not see whether there was a safe place for him to alight, and that he did this voluntarily, and for no other...