The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1893-06-12
LIABILITY Of RAILROADS.
Care that Must be Exercised b
Transportation Of Passengers
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO DAMAGES
For Injuries Received by Falling on
slippery stairs when They Gould
Have Been Put IN Safe Condition
Court Of Appeals Didn't sustain " lew.

II is a well established rule OF law in this
state and throughout the country gener-
ally that railway company is obliged to
exercise the highest degree Of care In trans
porting it's passengers from place to place.
The utmost caution must be observed to
keep the roadbed, the cars and engines and
all the appliances used in the operation OF
the line in such condition as to prevent
accidents TO the traveller. The conditions
of railway travel are such that the least
negligence in respect to such matters Is
likely to result in serious or fatal injury to
the passengers, and hence very high meas
ure Of vigilance Is demanded.
In the development of the law on this
subject an effort was made some years ago
to extend the doctrine OF which we have
spoken, aud to make it apply not only to
the tracks and the trains running upon
them, but also to railway platforms and
the approaches to these platforms. and at
FIRST the courts were inclined to hold, and
many of them did hold. that the same de-
gree of care was required by the law In re-
spect TO such structures as was prescribed
in regard to the roadbed and rolling stock.
When the question reached the court OF
appeals however, that tribunal declined to
apply so severe a measure Of liability to
the railroad companies and declared that
SO far as approaches TO the cars are concern
ed, such as platforms, stairways and SINH
lar structures, less degree Of care is re-
quired than is demanded in reference to the
appliances actually used for the convey
ance of passengers, the reason for the dis
tinction being that the consequence Of de-
fects in station or it's approaches are usu-
ally much less serious in their nature. In
such cases the settled rule now appears to be
that the railroad company is bound only to
exercise ordinary care in view of the danger
which may reasonably be anticipated.
Most Of the suits which have given rise to
this distinction as to the degree Of care re-
quired of railroad corporations have been
actions to recover damages for injuries sus-
tanned by falling on platforms or stairways
upon which ice or snow had accumulated,
the claim of the plaintiff being that the
persons in charge Of the station did not
take proper care to render the entrance to
or exit from the station safe for passengers
TO walk upon. In one case Of this sort the
trial court told the jury that if they came
to the conclusion that the steps Of the sta
tion were slippery at the time the plaintiff
was hurt aud that means might have been
taken TO prevent them from being so the
plaintiff was entitled to verdict.
The court Of appeals said that this state
ment of the law was incorrect because it
imposed too onerous an obligation upon the
railroad company. 1t was within the
bounds of possibility to prevent the steps
from becoming slippery by keeping sufii-
cient number OF men stationed at them to
sweep them off as the snow fell, and yet it
would obviously be too much to expect
that man should be stationed at each step
of the stairway for this purpose.
Notwithstanding the limitation Of the
rule of liability, so as TO require only ordi-
nary prudence in the care of station plat
forms and approaches, many suits continue
to be brought on account of personal in
juries alleged to have been received in con-
sequence Of defects in such structures or
failure on the part of the station agents to
keep them In proper condition. An inter
esting case of this character arose In the
supreme court here recently. The plain
tiff, who had been making trip on an ele-
waited railroad train, In descending the
stairs from the station slipped on a piece
of lemon or orange peel and was consider
ably hurt. II was contended that the rail-
road company was liable for this accident,
because it did not have the stairway swept
oftener than once every four or five hours.
The complaint was dismissed upon the
trial, bat the case will probably be carried
to the court Of appeals for review.-New
York Sun