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

• Decision Date: 02 November 1908
• Citation: 113 S.W. 644
• Parties: ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. v. BRIGGS.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

113 S.W. 644

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

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

November 2, 1908.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Nevada County; Jacob M. Carter, Judge.

Action by Frances Briggs against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Frances Briggs, a colored woman, brought this suit against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company to recover damages for injury sustained by her in alighting from the company's train. The facts, as stated by plaintiff, are as follows: On the 5th day of January, 1906, she was a passenger on defendant's train, going from Hope, Ark., to Emmett, Ark. The train arrived at Emmett at 10 o'clock in the night-time. The train porter called the station. She went out of the door of the coach as soon as the train stopped. She started to get off. Just as she got on the bottom step, the train gave a jerk and started up. This caused her to fall from the step, and in falling her ankle was twisted. There was not any light there, nor was there any one to assist her in alighting from the train. The train had run past the station. There was a gravel platform. The train stopped beyond this platform, between it and the mail crane. The ground where the train stopped and where she attempted to get off the train was somewhat rolling. On account of the injury, she was not able to work for six months. She still suffers from the effects of the injury. Other evidence was adduced in her behalf tending to substantiate her statements both as to the extent of her injury and the manner in which it occurred. The railway company denied negligence and adduced evidence to establish its defense.

Appellant objected to the giving of the following instructions and saved exceptions thereto:

"You are told that the carriers of passengers by steam are held to a high degree of care and are responsible for a very small degree of negligence. They are bound to provide safe and convenient means of ingress and egress to and from their cars, to remain stopped at stations a reasonable length of time to permit passengers to leave the cars with safety. When a train has stopped at a station, and before the passengers have had time to alight, it is their duty to give the passengers notice in some way of all moves of the train. If in this case you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant failed in the discharge of its duty in either of these respects while the plaintiff was a passenger on the train, and that such failure caused the injury without fault on plaintiff's part, your verdict should be for the plaintiff." (To the giving of this instruction the defendant at the time objected. Objection overruled, and exceptions saved.)

(3) "You are further told that, in providing safe and convenient means of egress and ingress, it is the duty of the railroad company to provide lights at their stations for the safety of passengers arriving or departing at night, and if a passenger is injured, without fault on his or her part, by the failure to provide such lights, the company is liable. So in this case, if you believe from a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant failed to provide lights so that the plaintiff could see how to alight in safety, and that she was, without fault on her part, injured by reason of such failure to provide lights, your verdict should be for the plaintiff." (To the giving of this instruction defendant at the time objected upon the ground that same is abstract and not based upon any evidence. Objection overruled, and exceptions saved.)

(4) "You are told that it was the duty of the defendant to stop its train so that the plaintiff could alight upon the platform, and if it failed to do so, and the plaintiff was without her fault injured by reason thereof, your verdict should be for the plaintiff."

There was a jury trial and verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $400. Defendant has appealed.

...