Case ID: walker_4/html/0268-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

KRIEG vs. LEILIGH VALLEY R. R. CO.
    A 'through passenger, who got off the train at night at a way station for some refreshments, and afterwards desiring to go to a water closet, walked to the end of a long platform and around the .guard rail, and then fell down an embankment, is guilty of negligence.
    No. 399 January Term, 1867. Error to Common Pleas of Northampton county,
    Ferdinand Krieg was a passenger from Reading to New York ■city on the afternoon of November 3rd, 1863. The train stopped at Easton at the Lehigh Valley depot 10 or 15 minutes, and Krieg went to the refreshment room and got some oysters. Afterwards he came out, and desiring to urinate he-looked for the water closet. The night was dark and misty, and the platform was not lighted up. At this point the track was built upon trestles about twenty feet from the ground. The platform is provided with a stout railing;'but Krieg walked beyond it and fell on the ground, sustaining-severe injuries, which disabled him for about a year, There-were no signs indicating where water closets were and there was no employee to point them out. Suit was brought against the R. R. Co. for damages for injuries sustained. The following is a portion of the charge of the Court:
    He (Krieg) “said he was on the platform at the depot and1 got down upon the track, and went around the end of the-railing at the west end of the platform to urinate and fell from there to the ground. * * * * This evidence is uncontradicted— and we have the fact therefore beyond dispute, that he received the serious injui ies of which he complains-through his own negligence or carelessness. He did not regard the railing at the end of the depot and platform, which had been erected to prevent persons from going or falling off, but got down upon the railroad track and attempted to go-around the end of the railing beyond the platform of the depot and from which point, as was before stated to you, the-evidence shows that the bed of the railroad was laid on trestle work about 20 feet from the ground. We cannot say to you that this portion of the road built on trestle work west of the depot and platform was part of the depot, or that passengers had any right whatever to go upon the railroad track west of the depot. * * * * The company were not bound to-put any fixtures upon that part of the line of their road to prevent persons from falling off who might venture there without right. * * * * We direct a verdict for defendant.
    Krieg then took a writ of error complaining of the charge of the Court, &c.
    
      M. H. Jones and Elisha Allis, Esqs., for plaintiff
    in error, cited Scott vs. Hunter, 46 Pa. 192; Pittsburg vs. Grier, 22 Pa., 54; North Penna., R. R. vs. Robinson et al., 44 Pa. 175; Martin vs. Great Northern Ry. Co., 30 Eng. Law and Eg. Rep., 474; Penna. R. R. Co. vs. Kilgore, 32 Pa., 292; Ilott vs. Wilkes, 3 Barn & Cass, 304; Bird vs. Holbrook, 4 Bing, 628; Brown vs. Lynn, 7 Casey, 510; Lynch vs. Nurdin, 1 Ad. & Ellis, N. S., 41 Eng. Common Law, 422; Lloyd vs. Hill, 31 Pa., 358; Pennsylvania R. R. vs. Kelly, 31 Pa., 372; Smith O’Connor, 12 Wr., 218; North Penna, R. R. Co. vs. Rehman, 49 Pa., 101; Cumberland Valley R. R, vs. Hughes, 11 Pa., 145; Laing vs. Colder, 8 Pa., 483; New Jersey R. R. Co. vs. Kennard, 21 Pa., 206; Peters vs. Rylands, 20 Pa., 502; Penna. R. R. Co. vs. McTighe, 46 Pa., 320; Penna. R. R. Co. vs. Ogier, 35 Pa., 60; McCully vs. Clarke, 40 Pa., 399; Phila. & Reading R. R. vs. Spearen, 47 Pa., 305; Reeves vs. Del. L. & W. R. R., 30 Pa., 461; Sullivan vs. P. & R. R. R., 30 Pa.; 234; Oakland R. R. Co. vs. Fielding, 48 Pa., 321; Frazier vs. Penna. R. R. 2 Wr., 104. Jordan vs. Stewart, 23 Pa., 247.
    
      H. Green, Esq., for defendant in error,
    cited Railroad Co. vs. Skinner, 19 Pa., 298; Pennsylvania Railroad Co. vs. Aspell, 23 Pa., 149; Little Schuylkill R. R. Co. vs. Norton, 24 Pa., 465; O’Brien vs. Railroad Co., 3 Phila., 76; Penna. R. R. Co. vs. Zebe, 33 Pa., 318; Phila. & Reading R. R. Co. vs. Hummell, 44 Pa., 375; North Penna. R. R. Co. vs. Heileman, 49 Pa., 60; Catawissa R. R. Co. vs. Armstrong, 49 Pa., 186: North Penna. R. R. Co. vs. Rehman, 49 Pa., 101.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas on April 1st, 1867, in the following opinion :

Per Curiam.

The ruling of the Court below is so well sustained by the authorities cited in the argument that it is enough to affirm the judgment for the reasons given by the learned J udge.

Judgment affirmed.