Case Name: MISSOURI BULLOCK v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1910-03-02
Citations: 152 N.C. 66
Docket Number: 
Parties: MISSOURI BULLOCK v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 152
Pages: 66–67

Head Matter:
MISSOURI BULLOCK v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.
(Filed 2 March, 1910.)
1. Carriers of Passengers — Wrong Train — Wrong Information— Passenger — Alight—Assistance—Negligence.
The purchaser of a ticket who has taken the wrong train in accordance with the information given by its porter, is a passenger thereon until she leaves the train, and the company is liable in damages proximately caused by the failure of the conductor or porter to stop the train at a suitable placee or to provide the proper steps or assistance for her to alight.
2. Same — Place to Stop Train.
’ The railroad company owed a duty to plaintiff ejected from its train to put her off the train at a suitable and proper place, either at a station or near a house, even though she had not been rightfully a passenger. Revisal, 2629.
3. Pleadings — Demurrer—Practice Suggested.
The allegations of a complaint are taken as true upon demurrer. It is suggested that on such allegations as contained in the complaint in this case the defendant should answer, and not by demurrer ask the court to justify, as a matter of law, its conduct.
Appeal by defendant from Ward, J., at Fall Term, 1909, of Hyde.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Ward & Grimes for plaintiff.
Small, McLean & McMullan for defendant.

Opinion:
Clark, C. J.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff (who was sick and traveling with her three children and baggage) had a ticket over the defendant's road from Wilmington to Washington, N. C.; that on reaching Parmele she had to change cars, and there being several trains waiting there, she asked defendant's porter which was the train for Washington, N. 0., and with her children entered the train he showed her, relying upon his statement; the train thus entered proved to be tbe defendant's train for WiHiamston; tbe plaintiff did not discover ber mistake until tbe conductor called for ber ticket, wben tbe train bad gone two miles; sbe informed tbe conductor that sbe was sick and on ber way to Washington for medical .treatment, and offered to pay bim to take ber back to Parmele, but tbe conductor immediately stopped tbe train, and at an unsafe and improper place for ber to get off, tbe distance from tbe lower step at that place being three feet from tbe ground, tbe roadbed sloping towards tbe ditch, and negligently refused to provide ber portable steps usual in such cases, and negligently refused to provide ber -with any assistance by po.rter or otherwise, though knowing that sbe was in a great burry and excitement and sick, and with baggage and children to assist and care for, and though tbe defendant's porter bad negligently caused ber to take tbe wrong train, whereby sbe was seriously hurt and internally injured by tbe fall and jar, causing ber great bodily pain and great suffering, and permanent impairment of health and physical condition. The defendant demurred upon the ground that tbe complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
His Honor properly overruled tbe demurrer. Tbe plaintiff was a passenger on the defendant's road, and continued to be such while on tbe platform at Parmele. Daniels v. R. R., 117 N. C., 592.
If the porter told ber to get on this train, sbe bad a right to presume that be knew what be was talking about, and would properly discharge bis duties, which by general knowledge and consent cover assistance to passengers. Tillet v. R. R., 118 N. C., 1031; R. R. v. White (Texas), 13 Ann. Cas., 965, and cases in tbe notes. Besides, even if the plaintiff bad not been a passenger, it was tbe duty of tbe defendant to put ber off at a suitable and proper place, and either at a station or near a house. Rev., 2629; Moore on Carriers, 750; Book v. R. R., 84 Mo. App., 76. Of course, it was not its duty to run tbe train back to Parmele.
We are compelled, on a demurrer, to take the- allegations of tbe complaint as true. Hpon tbe coming in of tbe answer, and a trial before tbe jury a different state of facts may be shown. It would be better on such allegations as these for tbe defendant to answer and deny tbe allegations, if it can, than by a demurrer to ask tbe Court to justify, as a matter of law, such conduct on its part as is alleged in tbe complaint in this case.
Affirmed.