The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1868-02-28
nieported ior the Evansville Journal.
Decision OF Supreme Court or
Indiana
The Evansville and Crawfords-l
Vile Railroad Company Gibson
County.
Duncan Frazer.
Duncan Frazer.

Vile Railroad Company 9i2son-
Duncan Frazer.
The suit was by the appellee against
the appellant. The complaint was 10
two paragraphs, to each Of which a
demurrer by the defendant was fled
and overrufed. An issue was then
made by the general denial, the trial
of which resulted 10 a verdict Of S7Z5
for the plaintiff, upon which, over a
motion SDg athe defendant for a new
trial, judgment was rendered.
The first paragraph Of the COM
plant was, that the defendant was a
carrier Of passengers by. railroad, for
hire, from Princeton to Fort Branch
that on, &C., the plaintiff, at the de-
fendantsa request, became and was re-
eeived as a passenger from the former
TO the latter place, &c, and thereupon
it then and there became and was the
duty of said defendants to use due
and proper care and diligence, that
the plaintiff should be safely and Sc
curely carried and conveyed by and
upon said railroad and cars, on the
said journey from the town Of Prince
ton aforesaid to the town Of Fort
Branch aforesaid, but in alleging a
breach Of this contract on the part
Of the appellants the appellee
in said paragraph Of her com
plant, after alleging that the,
appellants did not use diligence,
in general terms, and alleging that
the appellants page. 4, line 1O.
suffered and permitted the plaintiff
to be carried and conveyed on said
journey ia a certain box or stock car,
lime 16] destitute OF platform, steps.
or ladders, by means Of which said
plaintiff could with safety descend
from the same, and also suffered and
permitted the locomotive and train Of
cars aforesaid " line 22l =" to stop,
before the said ear wherein the plain
tiff was a passenger as aforesaid had
arrived at the platform or depot, at
the town Of Fort Branch aforesaid,
and then and there by their agent or
commanded the plaintiff to get off the
same, but wholly neglected to provide
steps, ladders, platforms, or other
means of descent for the use of the
plaintiff, or TO use due and proper
care and diligence for the safety of
the plaintiff In that behalf, and by
reason thereof the plaintiff was com /
PEELED to leap from the side of the car
aforesaid to the ground, by means
whereof, and without the fault or
negligence Of the plaintiff, one of the
ankles of the plaintiff became and
was fractured and broken, and she
was otherwise greatly bruised and in
jured, and claiming damages special
and general for said injury Tran
script, pages 4 and g.
The second paragraph is substan-
TALLY the same as the first, except that
says nothing about the kind of car
IL which she was conveyed to Fort
Branch, OF the want Of any steps. or
ladders by which she could descend,
and also excepting the allegation IN
the first paragraph that appellee had
been ordered by appellants agentor
conductor" to get off the train.
The allegation ID this paragraph Of
the appellants breach Of their con-
tract Is, that the train was by and
through the carelessness and neqli-
gence and improper. conduct Of said
Fort Branch aforesaid, before that
part Of the said last mentioned train
on which the plaintiffs was a passen-
ger reached the platform or depot,
and plaintiff, by. reason thereof, was
compelled to junp from said car 10
and upon the ground, aud by means
whereof, and without the fault or
negligence of the plaintiff, the ankle
of the plaintiff became and was frac4
tured, &c.
1t is argued as to both paragraphs.
list. That no breach of the contract
a1laroA - sh nvuv,s fna ,I1o.ol
being only to carry safely to Fort
Branch, which was fully performed.
I'd. That the injury appears to have
resulted from the rash conduct Of the
plaintiff herself
Both paragraphs are, in our opinion,
good. AS to the second objection, it
is sufficient to say that we do not un-
derstand, from the arguments, that
the rash conduct Of the plaintiff pro-
duced the injury.
The other objection needs more
careful examination. The pleader
undertook, unnecessarily, we think,
to state the duties which became in
cumbent upon the carrier in conse-
quence Of having received the plain
tin as a passenger from place to place,
and failed to state the very duty, the
nSsiSCl Va WhICu pIuQuceQ the injury,
namely: providing safe mode Of exit
from the car.
These duties are annexed by law
to the contract to carry, and we are of
the opinion that the court will Judi
cially take notice of them without
any averment as to what they are.
Dudley & Smith, 1 camp 167, was de-
cided upon this principle. Though
the dnties of the 90 rriar In refarannn 10