Case ID: miss_94/html/0440-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Fletcher, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arthur Bell v. Southern Railway Company.
    [49 South. 120.]
    Railroads. Passengers. Riding on platform. Truck left near track.
    
    Where a passenger is without fault in being upon the lower step of a railway coach he may recover from the company for injuries received by being carried in contact with a truck, negligently left too close to the track.
    Prom the circuit court of Webster county.
    Hon. George A. McLean, Judge.
    Bell, the appellant, was plaintiff in the court below, and the railway company, appellee, was defendant there. Prom a judgment in favor of defendant the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court.
    Appellant sued the railway company for injuries received through the alleged carelessness and negligence of the company. lie testified tliat, as lie stepped upon the bottom step of the appellee’s passenger coach, the train began to move and appellant’s heel struck a truck standing close to the railroad track, which caused him to fall from the step, receiving the injuries in question. Appellee defended on the ground that appellant was himself guilty of negligence, and that appellee was not guilty ■of any wrong. The court peremptorily instructed the jury and .it found in favor of the defendant.
    
      Dunn, Gould & McKeigney, for appellant.
    It was negligence on the part of the railroad company to permit the .truck of the express company to be left so near the track of the railroad company, at its depot, as to catch the heel of a passenger on the step as the train moved out of the depot station. The fact that the train had stopped at the depot station was an invitation to passengers to board it. Chicago, ele., B. Do. v. Chancellor, 60 111. App. 525.
    A carrier is bound to use extraordinary care as to the safety of its station grounds and tracks about its passenger depots. 3 Thompson, Negligence, 146. This is not a case where a man, with his foot on the ground, clutches the hand-hold or railing of the car, while trying to board a rapidly moving train. It is - a case where a man who has boarded a train before it starts, and who is trying to get' upon the platform of the car, is knocked from the steps of the car by having his foot caught by an obstruction negligently placed so near to the track as to be dangerous.
    The fact that the express company’s truck did not belong to the appellee, is immaterial here. Mangum v. Railroad Go., 145 N. C. 152; Wooten v. Railroad Company, 79 Miss. 26, 29 South. 61.
    
      Catchings & Catchings, for appellee.
    The negligence alleged in the declaration and the injuries sued for must bear the relation of cause and effect. The concurrence of both, and the nexus between them must exist, to constitute a cause of action. Benedict v. Potts, 40 Atl. 1068. The peremptory instruction in favor of appellee was fully justified by the testimony. As stated by this court in the ease of Wooten v. Railroad Company, 79 Miss. -26, 29 South. 61, the general rule is that to board a train in motion is negligence as a matter of law, and sufficient to bar recovery for resulting damages. While the court recognizes exceptions to the rule, it ap.plies the rule as stated. There can be no exception to the rule except where an intending passenger under stress of time and under some particular circumstances, attempts to get on a moving train. The testimony shows that there was no stress of time and no particular circumstance to affect the general rule.
    A passenger, attempting to' board a moving train, is guilty of negligence as a matter of law, and will be precluded from recovery. The testimony of appellant, Bell, shows plainly that he was standing by the car for some minutes before it started, and that he was in no way prevented from boarding it by any business engagement, but that he continued to talk with his cousin merely as a matter, of personal pleasure until the engine bell rang. He testified that he then stepped on lowest step of the car and, before he could get upon the second and higher step, his heel was struck by the truck. Had he boarded the train before it began to move, he would have sustained no injury.
    It is undoubtedly the duty of the railroad company to keep its passenger depot platforms in such condition that passengers intending to embark upon its train can easily move across the platform to the train without danger; but a depot platform has no other function to perform than to afford a safe means of ingress and egress to and from the train. If the railroad company’s depot platform furnished such safe ingress and egress it has fully discharged its duty to passengers in this respect.
   Fletcher, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff’s testimony in this case tended to show, not that he boarded the train while it was in motion, but that he got upon the first step before tbe train started. Tbe train started immediately, and when plaintiff raised bis foot to advance to tbe second step bis beel was caugbt by an express truck, wbicb was standing against tbe railroad track so near tbe passing coacb as to strike plaintiff’s foot. Plaintiff .was knocked from tbe car steps and injured.

This being tbe case as made by tbe plaintiff’s testimony, it was error for tbe court to give a peremptory instruction for tbedefendant railroad company. Tbis is not tbe case of a passenger boarding a moving train; and it is settled law that it is negligence for a railroad company to permit a truck to stand so-near tbe track as to strike passengers wbo are in tbe act of taking passage on tbe train. Wooten v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 79 Miss. 26, 29 South. 61.

It is hardly necessary to add that conflicts in tbe testimony are for tbe jury, not for tbe court.

Reversed and remanded,