The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1899-01-05

tive, that it was her desire that the train
should be stopped and she be permitted to
alight. Else why did she rush forward to
the brakeman, call for the conductor, and
complain because she had not been "set off
at Berwick"
1t is midsummer madness to contend that
she was elected Or forced to leave the train
against her will No sane man could reach
such conclusion after reading her testi
mony. Having left the train voluntarily at
point beyond the regular station platform,
without requesting the trainmen to escort her
back or back the train she assumed the risk
of reaching the station in safety and forfeited
her rights as passenger
But assuming that it was SO dark, where
the conductor left her, that she couldn't see
the ground, her own feet or the rails,
couldn't see where she was walking-did she
use ordinary care in "hurrying as fast as she
could" through inky darkness, with a veil
over her face2
She was a person of mature years,
"'strong, healthy, robust woman" she knew
she was in strange place, on the railroad
track, in pitch darkness. Yet she hurried as
fast as she could to meet her friends at the
station without raising her veil or asking an
escort.
In voluntarily leaving the train where she
did, in darkness such as she describes, and
hurrying forward over unfamiliar ground with
a veil over her face, she must be held to have
been guilty of contributory ne ,ligence.
There is another phase Of the case which
the Court feels called upon to discuss. Only
two witnesses saw the plaintiff fall. They
are Miss Blocker and Mrs. Averill. They
were subpoened and called by the plaintiff
They saw the plaintiff first at the rear end of
the car where she was left by the conductor
she was walking toward them.
They saw her pass the switch bars in safety
and continue up the track toward the "small
PLATFORM" ''As she stepped from the small
platform to the ground she plunged forward
and fell"
1t will be remembered that Mrs. Case her
self testified that she couldn't see that the
| platform was elevated" Here was clear
| summer evening in August about eight
o'clock. The unobstructed rays of two arc
| lights streamed upon this platform from OPP
posite directions; and yet Mrs. Case couldn't
see that the platform was elevated.
There is no allegation anywhere that her
vision was imperfect. The only inference is
that she didn't use her eyes as an ordinarily
| prudent person would under similar circum-
stances and was therefore guilty of contrib IL
| tory negligence There is no evidence that
| she even raised her veil.
| If in stepping from the platform to the
| ground under the mistaken impression that it
was not elevated, she plunged forward and
fell, she can blame no one but her self. for
if she had looked, she couldn't have helped
but see, that the platform was elevated. A
person is bound to see what their eyes will
disclose, by the ordinary and proper use of
| them.
| "a railroad Company isl not liable to a
passenger for an accident which the passeng-
er might have prevented by ordinary atten-
ton to his own safety, even though the
agents in charge of the train are also remiss
in their duty. They are not insurers against
the perils to which passenger may expose
himself by his own rashness or folly" Rail
road Company VS.. Aspell 20 P. S. I49.
| Thus far we have considered the case with
out reference to certain facts disclosed in the
evidence, which tend TO show that the de-
fendant was not negligent.
The plaintiffs right to recover in this case
depends upon the liability of the defendant
to respond in damage for its negligent acts
The burden is upon the plaintiff to estab.
lish the facts from which the inference OF
such negligence can be legitmately drawn.
When passenger enters into contract
with Railroad Company by purchasing q
ticket to carry her to given distance, and the
ticket is limited one, calling for continue
Gus journey without stop over privileges
neither passenger nor conductor of the Rail
road Company can alter or change that con
tract SO as to make the company liable fol
any failure in alighting the passenger at any
intermediate point; especially when the ticke
carries on its face the notice, "No agent ol
employe has power to modify this contract
in any particular"
The contract between Martha A Case anC
the defendant Company was for carriage from
Buffalo to Bloomsburg, evidenced by frs
class limited ticket requiring a continuous
journey with no stop over privileges. TIL,
defendant was therefore under no legal o.
contract obligation to Martha A. Case to an
nounce the station Berwick, by calling il
the car or any other way; Berwick being al
intermediate station between Buffalo anC
Bloomsbury, aud not a junction point wher,
it was necessary to change cars.