The Bridgeport evening farmer. [volume] (Bridgeport, Conn.) 1866-1917, 1912-03-14

What Constitutes a Railroad Walt
ing room? The question arose in Louis
vile, H. & st. L. Co. VS.. Common
as to whether a railroad company, in
using a room in a hotel as a waiting
room in small town, about 600 Or 100
population, compiled with Kentucky
Statutes, requiring that suitable wait
ing rooms should be kept. Section
772, KY. ST. Russell's ST. Section 5000,
provides that railroad companies shall
provide convenient and suitable wait
ing rooms and their appurtenanceS,
while section 7S4 Ky. st. (section 1898,
Russell's St), which the Court of APP
peals of Kentucky held must be read
together with section 772,prOvides that
railroad companies shall keep their
ticket offices open for the sale OF tick
cts at least 80 minutes Immediately
preceding the schedule time of de-
parture of all passenger trains from
every regular passenger trains from
every regular passenger depot, and
shall open the waiting room for pas
sengers at the same time as the ticket
office, and keep it open and comfort
ably warm in cold weather until the
train departs, and shall keep bulletins
of delayed trains for the convenience
of the passengers. On the south SIDE
of the tracks in this little town there
and waiting room about Is by 10 feet.
Here the tickets were sold and bull
letins Of delayed trains were posted. On
the north side of the tracks was an
establishment called the Lyons Ho-
tell The railroad company ged
the waiting room of this hotel for its
passengers. The room was about Is
by 25 feet There was no sign over
the door to apprise passengers of the
fact that this was to be used a
waiting room. 1t appeared that when
the landlord closed UP the hotel at
night he also closed up this room,
thereby making it at that time totally
inaccess bic to passengers. No bulle-
tins Were kept at the hotel and no
tickets sod. The court held that the
railroad company violated the statute,
as such a room was not a convenient
ard suitable waiting room within its
terms.
Mental Caraci+y and Contrihut DRY
Ne~l'o erce.-The following is interest
ing OF the question Of contribut o~y
re 'igence. Troreh Perfectly reason
does rot very of en- see the question
snuarelv raised and decided, that be-
cause OF a rerso1's mental capacity he
may not he contributorily negligent
when receiving personal injury. The
contention that all adults oe SUIT
CteHC lIFIel'lSSDc0 10 go d'Out tHe
streets without the necessity for
guardianship to keen them out of
harm s way should be held to a uni
form rule Of responsibility for contrib
utorv nerl<eenoe, for the eason that 1t
would he in1pra ct cable to frame var
yirg rules o. responsibility for varvio g
degrees of intelligence, sounds good or
is face, but we must keep cur eye on
the rabbit and rernember that in the
first instance defendant is wrongful
ly negligent, for VIII 'ch It can escape
liability only by the contributory neg
lieence of Plaintiff. One cannot be
held responsible in such a case for his
want of judgment and discretion. A
person Is required to use only such
care as his mental strength and de-
velorment demands of him. In other
words, one cannot be foolhardy, rash
or daredevil. If an insane person
gets in front of train no one would
consider him foolhardy and rash, but
would attribute his action to his men
tai state, which misdirected him and
rendered the act irresponsible. He be-
comes, so to speak, an lnanlmate OBJ
ject, and, if the train crew were pri-
marily negligent, they become liable
for any injury resulting. 1t is for this
reason that it is never said that cows
or horses struck by trains are con-
tributOrily negligent. They are consld-
cred without judgment and discretion
and, so far as power to discern danger
and the proper time and a method fol-
escape is concerned are mere inan1matt
objects. Likewise a child of tender
years, which has not yet learned tt