The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-11-24

4 Texas Judsmeat which Estends ~
Responsibility OF Maiiroada.

The duty 81 common carrier TO An In
tending passenger l. extended hsyond H.
limits prescribed IN most court rulings IN
decision Of the supreme tourt OF IeNa- 20
the case OF the Texas Midland Railroad
Ceraidon n:s y " sin, where the col-'
recognized a cause Of action for person.
injuries partly on the ground that I'll. 70
ton Of passenger and carrier had neg
when tho plaintiff. who MAS the defendau-
In error had gone 10 railroad station afts-
the last train for the day had left and there
wa- no other until the following morning
The facts OF the case were that tn. plain.
til and his family went to the station a.
4 o clock in the afternoon, and finding thar
the train had passed tn" plaintiff l"f, ~
wife and child IN the DEPOT while he went
out ON the platform to box his good '" hAy-
them ready to ship ON the next train ~
) A. NJ At % o'clock AZ night. after th--
plaintiff had finished the work, he went bscs
into the station and decided Ia remain there
until train time. At lo O'Clock the railroad
agent told the plaintiff and his paf'v that
they would have To leave. ~ he ~a- com
PEELED. according la his orders, Ia e. - Nh"
depot for the night
n was raining and the plaintiff told 's,
agent that his wife WAS IA and In no '"n1.
ton To 90 out IN the rain. and asked - ~ she
b. permitted to remain until the ram '.as''
The agent said. Well. you will have In -
out all the same The plaintiff repleG.
y ou will have 10 pat me ou'. The sKsu'
then called he town marshal and ORDERED
him tn put the party out. whereuron thp
plaintiffs wife became excited. and tho
plaintiff then consented to go out with h"r
They went TO lodging house ab"lt y"
Yards from the station, with about one
third Of tn. way covered by awnings lhc
plaintiff . wife was Wet through. and ha .lnG
no chang. 81 clothing. Il Was alleged 'hA'
she suffered PERMANENT impairment, III
health.
In Affirming a judgment in the plaintt-
favor the court decides that the plain'lT
and tn. members Of his party wers not
.trespas~srs. hut became passengers ~ coon
a. they entered the station. The court
comedies that the railroad company has
right to make reasonable rules, and that
IL IL the agents duty Ia enforce them, hut
declares that the case is similar To that Of
conductor who II he inds u necessary 10
.Xpel a passenger must see to II that the
Ia --snxer Is not ex posed to danger Of health
or life. either On account Of the place wher.
the rxpulsion occurs or the conditions as 10
weather.
The court also rests its decision upon the
privilege Of asylum or refuge under tho
menace Of great physical eSigency or ca
lamity the refusal Of which may give
cause OF action a. to person or property
turned sdrift and injured. The court
refers 10 PioOf VS.. Putnam IA VI. Gii.
which holds that where under stress OF
weather vessel WAS without perm ssion
moored to a private dock on an island ~
Lake Champaign owned by defendant. the
pIain,ir was no, guilty Of trcspass. but the
defendant was responsible in damages be-
cause his representative united the vessel
and permitted It to drift ashore with re-
sultanr Injuries.
In Depue " rl.tau 100 Minn, csa, the