Sweet v. The Union Pacific Railroad Company

• Citation: 65 Kan. 812,70 P. 883
• Decision Date: 06 December 1902
• Docket Number: 12,809
• Parties: WILLIAM SWEET v. THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Kansas

70 P. 883

65 Kan. 812

WILLIAM SWEET v. THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

No. 12,809

Supreme Court of Kansas

December 6, 1902

Decided July, 1902.

Error from Graham district court; CHARLES W. SMITH, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

PERSONAL INJURIES -- Knowledge of Danger. One who, knowing all the danger and peril of pursuing a given course and being under no compulsion to encounter the same, freely and voluntarily continues therein, cannot recover damages for injuries he may suffer.

H. J Harwi, and W. M. Roberts, for plaintiff in error.

N. H. Loomis, R. W. Blair, and H. A. Scandrett, for defendant in error.

CUNNINGHAM J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

CUNNINGHAM, J.:

This was an action for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff in error, occasioned by his falling from the platform of the railroad company's depot at Bogue, Kan. Plaintiff was at the time, and had been for more than three months, engaged in delivering the United States mail to the mail clerk on the trains of the company. An east-bound mixed train carrying a mail-car passed through Bogue shortly after five o'clock A. M. It was plaintiff's custom to sleep in the depot and get up in time to attend to the mail delivery. He did this on the morning of October 24, 1899, and, lighting his lantern, passed out on the platform. Occasionally the train, instead of stopping so that the mail-car would be in front of the platform, would pass beyond the east end of it. When this was the case, plaintiff would wait until the engineer had backed the train so that he could put the mail-sack aboard without getting off the platform. The morning in question was very dark and cloudy. The mail-car passed beyond the east end of the platform. In response to the shout of the conductor to hurry and get the mail on, plaintiff set his lantern down about the middle of the platform and walked briskly to the east end. As he approached where he supposed the end to be he slackened his pace, but, being mistaken as to where the end of the platform was, he stepped off the same, fell to the ground, a distance of about eighteen inches, and was injured. The plaintiff was seventy-four years old and his eyesight was very poor. The claimed negligence on the part of the company was that no light was furnished on the platform, and no steps or guard-rail maintained at the place where plaintiff fell off.

It appears clearly that plaintiff was fully advised as to the character and surroundings of the depot platform and the place where he fell of; that he had occasionally, in passing to and from the platform, got up and down at this place; that he knew no railing or steps were there, and no claim is made that the company had at any time maintained a light on the platform. Plaintiff testified that, as he approached where he supposed the end of the platform to be, he slowed his pace somewhat to look for it, and being asked why he slowed his pace, replied: "Knowing that the end of the platform was there some place, and that it was a pretty big step down, and dangerous to step down without knowing where it was; I didn't intend to go any further than to the end. That was why I slowed up. I got to the end without seeing it and fell off."

A demurrer to plaintiff's evidence was sustained by the court below. We think the court was correct in doing so, and this for two...