STATIONS AND STARTING.
Meditations on Crossings.--Bell or Whistle.--People on Track.--Access
to Stations.--Slippery Ice.--Checks on Trunks.--Notice of Arrivals
and Departures.--Trains late as usual.--Must keep Time.--Damages,
Damages.--Proof.--Ill fared Welfare.--Waiting-rooms not
Smoke-houses.--Charge of the Iron Horse.--Tripped up.
In course of time I had to go off on business, and, notwithstanding the
unhappy demise of my wife’s step-mother’s brother’s wife’s mother’s
aunt, I resolved to patronize the cars, and having long before
settled the insurance question to my own satisfaction, I purchased
both a railway and an accident ticket, and as the proper hour for the
departure of my train approached, started bag in hand, being minded to
go afoot to the station. “As I walked by myself, I talked to myself and
myself replied to me, and the questions myself then put to myself with
the answers, I give thee,” my would-be-wise reader.
Coming upon the railroad where it ran close to a house which hid the
line on one side completely from view, I was rather startled by a
freight-train dashing past within a few feet of my nose, and I asked
myself: “Should not a bell have been rung?” and I replied: “Yes,
wherever a train crosses a highway there the bell should be rung or
the whistle sounded;[254] and no engine should have gone at such a
speed.” “Should not the company place a watchman at a crossing to warn
pedestrians of the approach of trains?” the answer that came was, “I
fancy not, for _primâ facie_, a foot-passenger crossing a railway is
bound to look out for his own safety;[255] just as it is his duty to
use due care and caution in crossing a street, so as not recklessly to
get among the carriages.”[256] There is, it appears, no general duty
devolving upon railway companies to place watchmen at such places, but
it depends upon the particular circumstances of each individual case as
to whether the omission of such a precaution amounts to negligence or
not.[257] If, however, one is employed, his neglect of duty will make
the company liable.[258]
But then this crossing, I thought, is peculiarly dangerous, the line
being hid as it is! In such a case the mere occurrence of an accident
to one crossing will be evidence of negligence.[259] If a railroad
unnecessarily crosses a highway in such a manner and place that
travellers can neither see nor hear an approaching train until too
late to save themselves; or if a company erect a building so as to
shut off the view, they will be liable for collisions, in the absence
of negligence on the part of the injured ones.[260] I remember that
once, on a certain foggy morning in the land of fogs, a man took the
trouble to look up the line and to look down the line, but owing to the
dimness of the light failed to see a train coming; the engine never
whistled, the man was injured and the company was found guilty of
negligence.[261] Where persons are in the habit of crossing a line at
a particular place, though there is no right of way there, still the
responsibility of taking reasonable precautions in their use of such
place is thrown upon the company.[262]
The omission to give the signals required by statute, such as, ringing
the bell or sounding the whistle, constitutes a _primâ facie_ case of
negligence; still, to make the company liable for damages, the injury
must be the result of the want of the signal, and the onus of showing
this will not be upon the company, but upon the plaintiff.[263]
The public has a right to presume that if the proper warnings are not
given at a crossing, that the speed of the train will be reduced; if
not, to prevent an injured one getting damage it must be proved that
he was rash. The company will be liable if he kept a proper lookout,
though he was incautious in going on the track.[264]
Every one attempting to cross a railroad should do it with his eyes
open. He should listen for the signals, notice all the signs that may
be put up as warnings, and look up and down the road.[265] If, however,
he is driving across, it does not appear that he is bound to get out
of his carriage, or even stop for the purpose of listening.[266] If,
by the use of one’s optics, the train could have been perceived, it is
presumed in case of a collision, that the man hurt did not look, or did
not heed, and so under ordinary circumstances, the company will not
be liable.[267] Contributory negligence on the part of the afflicted
excuses the railroad, whether the proper signals have been given or
not, or whether the company is guilty of any other negligence or
not.[268]
When a carriage-way crossed a line on the level, and the gates on the
down side of the line being open, young Wanless, with some other boys,
entered on the railway at the time when a train on the up side was
passing, intending to cross as soon as the train had passed; meanwhile
another train, on the down side, which he could have seen if he had
looked, knocked him down and injured him. The Court of Queen’s Bench
and the House of Lords both held that the company were guilty of
negligence;[269] and that having the gate open was an intimation to
the public that the line was clear. However, in New York State it was
decided that a similar breach of duty only gave a right to the penalty
affixed thereto, and was not evidence of negligence:[270] and that one
must keep a lookout, even though no danger signal is given.[271] On the
other hand, other American cases hold that one has a right to expect a
company to do its duty, and give the proper notices and warnings.[272]
When on the point of crossing a track about the time a train is due one
should not bundle up his head, so as to impair the sense of hearing,
and then go straight ahead without looking out for the cars. If a man
does so and is made mince-meat of, he has only himself to blame, even
though neither bell nor whistle sounded.[273] One must not even hold
his hat on with his hand on a rainy, blowy, stormy, snowy night, if he
is thereby prevented seeing an approaching train.[274]
A railway company is not bound to use the same amount of care towards
strangers who voluntarily and wilfully go on their track as they owe
towards their passengers. This, Mr. Brand found out after he had his
legs cut off while walking on the track through the city.[275] If one
is unlawfully on the track, or contributes to the injury by his own
carelessness or negligence, yet if the injury could have been avoided
by the company’s servants using ordinary care, the railway is liable
for damages.[276] An engine driver, however, is not bound to slacken
speed when he sees before him, on the track, one whom he may reasonably
suppose can take care of himself, until he sees that otherwise the man,
woman, or child will be run over; but it is his duty to check the train
so soon as he spies a very young child, or apparently helpless person
in the way; if he does not do so and a collision ensues, the company
will be liable for the consequences.[277]
A company is bound so to lay their line at a crossing that no injury
will be done by reason of the rails being above the level of the
road.[278]
Near the station and forming one way of access thereto is a bridge,
said to be in a dangerous state, and across this I saw several persons
hurrying, but I preferred to go round by a longer way, for although it
has been decided that a company is liable for the death of a passenger
through the faulty construction of a bridge erected by them for the
more convenient access to the station, when there is a safe one about
one hundred yards further off which the unfortunate deceased might have
used,[279] still I considered discretion the better part of valor and
chose keeping sound bones in a whole skin to my wife enjoying plenty
and prosperity out of my life insurances. Besides, I recollected that
Mr. Justice Clesby had once said, that where a passenger having full
knowledge of the fact, still preferred using a dangerous way and in
consequence was injured, it would seem that such a foolish body would
have no ground of complaint, on the principle of the old maxim _volenti
non fit injuria_.[280] What risks men will run to save a few minutes or
a few steps; verily well saith the poet,--
“Of all the creatures that fly in the air
Swim in the sea, or tread earth so fair,
From Paris and Rome to Peru and Japan,
The most foolish beast, as I think, is man.”
On entering the station-yard I found engines puffing and snorting,
backing and switching on every side, and really it was at considerable
danger of my journey being summarily put an end to ere well commenced,
that I made my way to the platform. This rather annoyed me and ruffled
the habitual serenity of my temper (and the serenity of the most
serene would be tried by a locomotive spirting and squirting out a
jet of steam at one’s nether garments), for it is the duty of railway
companies to take all reasonable care to keep their premises in such a
state that those whom they invite there (and they invite all who may
desire to be carried to any place whither the line runs) will not be
unduly exposed to danger.[281] But they need not go so far as to put a
hand-rail upon a stairway for unsteady folks to steady themselves with,
where the stair is protected on either side by walls; and they may put
brass on the steps instead of lead, although it is more slippery.[282]
I had scarcely stepped on to the platform when one foot slipped from
under me, and down with a whack I descended upon the back of my head;
my carpet-bag, too, fell with a crash, telling of ruin to some valuable
therein contained. Up rose I in wrath and found that a strip of ice had
been the cause of my discomfiture, and I registered an oath on high
that the company should answer to me in solid gold for the damages
I had sustained; for I knew of one Shepherd, who having fallen on a
slippery place, while he tramped up and down the platform waiting for a
train, recovered a goodly sum from the company; and Martin, B., said,
railway servants ought to be alert during cold weather to see whether
there is ice upon the platform, and to remove it, or make it safe by
sanding it, or otherwise, if it is there.[283]
On I strode in ire--for I saw some girls snickering at me--to where the
baggage-master was checking the luggage.
“Check this,” I exclaimed.
“Take it into the car with you,” he replied.
“I won’t; you must check it; there’s a handle,” I returned.
“I won’t; handle be hanged; you must take it,” he retorted.
“All right,” I answered, inwardly resolving that as a check had been
refused me when demanded, the company should pay me the penalty of
eight dollars, as well as the costs of the action which I should
bring against them for it, and that I would insist upon the conductor
in charge of the train refunding me the fare that I had paid for my
ticket.[2] I was sorry now that I had bought the ticket in advance,
for under the circumstances they would have had no right to collect or
receive from me any toll or fare.[284]
I was determined to teach railway companies their duties, and
baggage-masters are far too fond of refusing to check small parcels or
bags; and at way stations, in their wisdom, even decline sometimes
to check large trunks, although the law of this Canada of ours says,
“Checks shall be affixed by an agent or servant to every parcel of
baggage having a handle, loop or fixture of any kind thereupon (though
what may be included in the latter term goodness only knows), and a
duplicate shall be given to the passenger delivering the same.”[285]
It was not many minutes before I found cause of action number _three_
against the respectable railway company to whose tender mercies I was
about to commit my precious self. The law directs that “the trains
shall be started and run at regular hours to be fixed by public
notice,”[286] but most locomotives--their drivers and conductors--treat
that clause with a contempt truly philosophical. The train by which
I desired to embark was overdue for half an hour, according to the
time-table which hung mockingly on the wall, so I looked about me to
see if there had been “put up on the outside of the station-house over
the platform of the station in some conspicuous place, a written or
printed notice signed by the station-master, stating to the best of
his knowledge and belief the time when such over-due train might be
expected to reach the station,” as it was the duty of the company to
do. Of course, no such notice was visible, such enactments being too
often deemed effete from the very day they appear on the statute book,
so I still further comforted and consoled my wounded feelings by the
thought that for this neglect or omission they were liable to an action
at my suit, in which full costs might be recovered[287] (the latter was
an object of importance just now).
I now retired into the waiting-room to ponder over the business that
had thus unexpectedly turned up. I knew that few men were bold enough
to fight a great railway company on any question, and especially one
involving a small amount, and that as a result of this railways have
been virtually exempt from the penalties attaching to many breaches of
duty and of contract which they are daily committing; but I determined
to sacrifice myself for the good of my fellows. I was eager, too, to
see my name figuring in the reports.
I also now began to reflect that if the train was much later, I would
miss my appointments, and then cause of action number _four_ would
accrue. For it is as clear as daylight that if a railway company
publishes or authorizes the publication of a time-table, representing
that a train will start at a particular hour for a particular place,
or arrive at a particular hour, and through negligence no train is
prepared or arrives, the company is responsible in damages to all
persons who have acted upon the faith of the representation, and
have been deceived and put to expense, and have sustained damage
thereby;[288] but if they give proper notice they will not be liable
for any necessary delay.[289] A company announced that their trains
would be punctual as far as possible; though, they said, they did not
undertake that they would run exactly according to the time-tables,
and that they would not be liable for any loss or damage arising from
unpunctuality; the court, however, held, that a delay of twenty-seven
minutes _en route_ between Liverpool and Leeds was evidence of
negligence or want of reasonable efforts to be punctual.[290] A
notice that a company will not be responsible for deviations from the
time-tables, unless the detentions are caused by the wilful neglect
of their employees, is practically invalid.[291] The company make a
continuous representation whilst they continue to hold out printed
or written papers as being their time-tables, and they thereby make
a public profession and representation that they will exercise their
vocation of common carriers, and dispatch passengers or goods, as the
case may be, to certain specified places at or about the time named in
such tables; and if they fail to do so they commit a breach of their
duty as common carriers, and are guilty of a fraudulent representation,
which may be the foundation of an action for deceit by any one who,
relying on the representation, tenders himself or his goods for
conveyance at the appointed time, and finds there is no train about to
start.[292]
Though neither time-table nor advertisement is an actual warranty for
the arrival and departure of trains at the time named, still companies
are unquestionably liable for any want of punctuality which they could
have avoided by the use of due care or skill; nor can they plead any
excuse, the existence of which was known to them when the tables were
published.[293] And when there has been a change of time, due care
should be used in notifying the public.[294]
I also ran the risk of missing the connection at B.; but I remembered
that once upon a time a tailor going down into the country to measure
his customers, in consequence of the train not having reached a
junction at the time advertised, missed his connection and had to spend
the night at the junction and pay extra fare the next morning; he sued
the company and recovered the amount of his hotel expenses and the
extra fare, but not for damages sustained by not reaching his customers
at the appointed time [but this rule seems to be almost equivalent
to a denial of all beneficial redress in such cases.[295]] The chief
baron in giving judgment, stated that as a rule, generally in actions
upon contracts the plaintiff is entitled to recover whatever damage
naturally results from the breach of the contract, but not damages for
the disappointment of mind occasioned by the breach of contract.[296]
When in consequence of the company’s negligence M. Le Blanche reached
Leeds too late for the Scarborough train, and he took a special train
whereby he reached Scarborough an hour earlier than if he had waited
for the next regular train, the court considered that although he had
no special business at S., yet still he was entitled to recover from
the railroad authorities the cost of the special train. But a man
should not take a special, hoping to have the expense recouped him,
unless it is a reasonable thing to do under the circumstances.[297]
In Manchester (England), a music teacher recovered against a railway
company five shillings which he had had to pay for cab-hire, the train
through delays having failed to make certain connections.[298] If a
party bound to do a certain thing does not do so, the other party may
do it for him as reasonably and nearly as may be, and charge him for
the reasonable expenses incurred in doing so. A company cannot escape
damages for its failure to carry a passenger with sufficient dispatch
by the fact that the delay was the wilful act of the conductor in
charge of the train.[299] It must clearly appear that the damages were
sustained without any fault on the part of the traveller, and in spite
of his utmost efforts to avoid them.[300]
The mere production of a ticket, however, is not sufficient evidence of
a contract to carry a passenger to a certain place within a given time,
as one Hurst discovered when he sued for various expenses and losses
sustained through missing a certain train in consequence of delay in
starting; the time-table must be produced to prove the contract.[301]
And as I knew that to prove that the table was issued by authority I
would have to show either that it was bought at one of the company’s
stations, or at one of their recognized receiving offices, or that
it was posted up in some office or place where the advertisements
of the company were usually placed,[302] I started off on a tour
of investigation to see if I could pick up the desired article, or
evidence that would answer my purpose, keeping in mind how ill fared my
friend, Mr. Welfare. He once innocently inquired of a railway porter
when the train would be in, and being referred by the official to a
time-table hanging upon the wall, he went to consult it; while doing
so, down tumbled, through a hole in the roof, a heavy plank and a roll
of zinc, and smote Mr. Welfare on the neck, doing him grievous bodily
harm; glancing upwards, the poor stricken one beheld the legs of a
man upon the roof. Yet for the damages done the company was held not
liable, as for aught that my friend showed at the trial the man might
have been the servant of a contractor employed to mend the roof, or the
misfortune might have been the result of a pure accident.[303] So the
sufferings of my friend served but to point a moral--Beware!--and to
adorn a volume of reports.
But to return from this digression anent my friend, to the topic on
which I was musing. Draper, C. J., in one case, held that a time-table
could not be treated as a part of the contract, but amounted to a
representation only; and that to recover damages one would have to
show that he bought his ticket before the time specified for the train
leaving, and not merely before the arrival of the train, for if that
were after the time specified, the would-be passenger would know as
well as the company that the time-table had been departed from.[304]
While I was thus deeply ruminating, an old friend appeared,--a Q.
C., of high standing, at the bar of a neighboring city,--and we went
outside to enjoy a chat and weed while waiting for the train. Seeing
an elderly female turn up her nose as a whiff of smoke tickled her
nostrils, as if it were in very deed a blast from the lower regions, as
King James said it was, my friend remarked:--
“Did you see that decision of Dillon, C. J., where he held that a woman
who found the waiting-room unfit for her occupation--tobacco and other
impurities being offensive to her delicate nerves--and so attempted
to enter the cars which had not as yet come up to the platform, and
was injured by the giving way of the platform steps, was entitled to
recover?”[305]
“No,” I replied.
“He ruled that it is the duty of railway passenger carriers to provide
comfortable rooms for the accommodation of passengers while waiting
at the stations, and to enforce such regulations in regard to smoking
therein as to enable persons to occupy them in reasonable comfort.”
“A very good decision for the ladies and those who have to wait hour
after hour in a dirty room for a train ages behind its time.”
“Still I think it is pushing the doctrine of the liability of companies
rather far.”
“Yes,” I returned, “and rather in the teeth of the dictum of Mr.
Justice Hannan, in Siner _v._ Great Western,[306] where he said he
thought that juries took an exaggerated view of the duties of railway
companies; that the companies have done so much for the comfort and
convenience of travellers that it is now made the subject of complaint
if the highest degree of luxurious care is not attained in all their
arrangements.”
“His is a much more sensible view of the case,” said Smith, who held
some railway shares, “and one more likely to produce dividends for
unfortunate stock-holders. If people avail themselves of the benefits
of railway travellers, they should make some allowances. Ah! look at
our fair friend!”
She was at the far end of the platform, and an engine attached to a
freight train seemed to be rushing straight at her; she turned and
fled, with a scream, to avoid the charge of the iron horse, and in
her hurry tripped over a barrow and fell prostrate. The career of the
locomotive was stopped. It appeared that its antics had been caused by
the negligent displacement of a switch. We raised the lady and found
that although slightly damaged she was more frightened than hurt. We
consoled her with the assurance that if she chose to sue the company
she could make them pay for the elephantine gambols of the fiery steed
which had so disturbed her equanimity.[307]
Seeing a man a short way off to whom I desired to speak, I was on the
point of jumping down off the platform, when my Q. C. exclaimed:--
“Hold! be not rash! If you jump, instead of going down by the steps,
and are hurt, you can never make the company pay for the plasters and
the salves;[308] besides here’s the train.”
And so indeed it was at last. Up it thundered to the station amid
screeching and bell-ringing: out rushed the passengers eager to reach
the refreshment room. The crowd pushed my chum against a portable
weighing-machine, and, catching his foot in it, he fell and injured
himself. Seeing that he was not very seriously damaged I could not help
crying out:--
“Hold! be not rash! I knew a case on all fours with yours, where
the foot of a machine projected above the level of the platform six
inches and was unfenced; there it had stood for years without doing
any damage, and it was held that there was no evidence to go to a
jury of any negligence, the machine being where it might have been
seen, and the accident not being one which could have been reasonably
anticipated.[309] An exactly similar case. Ho! ho! ho!”
“I wish the whole platform had given way with the weight of that mob,
and then there would without doubt have been evidence of negligence.
Besides I might have had the pleasure of seeing you break your leg;”
testily replied the Q. C. And he added, and more correctly than an
angry man usually speaks, “A company should not allow their platform to
be overcrowded, and they ought to have adequate means for protecting
their passengers in the event of an unusual influx of travellers.[310]
They are bound to see that the number of porters at each station is
adequate for the safety of passengers.”[311]
“Ah! my dear sir, one must be careful and walk circumspectly about
a station. You know where a man fell, seriously hurting himself, on
a staircase down which some forty thousand people had passed every
month without an accident, the court held that there was no evidence
of negligence on the part of the company to go to a jury, although the
brass covering on the step had been worn smooth, and said that ‘the
mere fact of a man having fallen and hurt himself is not sufficient
to charge the company with negligence in the construction of their
station; and the court is in an especial manner bound to see that the
evidence submitted to the jury in order to establish negligence, is
sufficient and proper to go to them.’”[312]
FOOTNOTES:
[254] Galena & Chi. Rw. _v._ Loomis, 13 Ill. 548.
[255] Skelton _v._ L. & N. W. Rw., L. R., 2 C. P. 631; Boggs _v._ Great
Western Rw., 23 U. C. C. P. 573.
[256] Williams _v._ Richards, 3 C. & K. 82; Cotton _v._ Wood, 8 C. B.
(N. S.), 571.
[257] Stubley _v._ L. & N. W. Rw., L. R., 1 Ex. 13.
[258] Kissenger _v._ N. Y., etc., Rw., 56 N. Y. 538.
[259] Bilbee _v._ L. & B. Rw., 18 C. B. (N. S.), 584; see also, Stapley
_v._ L. B. & S. C. Rw., L. R., 1 Ex. 21.
[260] Mackay _v._ N. Y. C., 35 N. Y. 75; Richardson _v._ N. Y. C., 45
N. Y. 846.
[261] James _v._ Gt. W. Rw., L. R., 2 C. P. 634 n.; see p. 63.
[262] Barrett _v._ Midland Rw., 1 F. & F. 361.
[263] Galena, etc., Union Rw. _v._ Loomis, 13 Ill. 548; Wakefield _v._
C. & P. R. Rw., 37 Vt. 330.
[264] B. & O. Rw. _v._ Trainor, 33 Md. 542; Cliff _v._ Midland Rw., L.
R., 5 Q. B. 258.
[265] Wharton on Neg. § 382 and notes.
[266] Davis _v._ N. Y. C., 47 N. Y. 400.
[267] Wharton, § 382.
[268] Ernst _v._ Hudson R. Rw., 39 N. Y. 61.
[269] Wanless _v._ N. E. Rw., L. R., 6 Q. B. 481; _S. C._, L. R., 7 E.
& I. App. 12; Stapley _v._ London & B. Rw., L. R., 1 Ex. 21.
[270] Brown _v._ Buffalo, etc., 22 N. Y. 191.
[271] Havens _v._ Erie Rw., 41 N. Y. 296.
[272] Hart _v._ Erie Rw., 3 Alb. L. J. 312; Tabor _v._ Mo. Vall. Rw.,
46 Mo. 353; _S. C._, 2 Am. Rep. 270.
[273] Steves _v._ Oswego & S. Rw., 18 N. Y. 422; Wilds _v._ Hudson R.
Rw., 24 N. Y. 430; but see Chaffee _v._ Boston & L. Rw., 104 Mass. 108.
[274] Butterfield _v._ Western Rw., 10 Allen, 532; Miller _v._ G. T.
R., 25 C. P. (Ont.), 389.
[275] Brand _v._ Troy & S. Rw., 8 Barb. 368; Anderson _v._ N. Rw., 25
C. P. (Ont.), 301.
[276] Brown _v._ Hannibal & St. J., etc., 50 Mo. 461; B. & O. Rw. _v._
Trainor, 33 Md. 542.
[277] Lake Shore Rw. _v._ Miller, 25 Mich. 277; Telfer _v._ N. Rw., 30
N. J. 188; St. Louis, etc., _v._ Manly, 58 Ill. 300.
[278] Oliver _v._ N. E. Rw., L. R., 9 Q. B. 409; Thompson _v._ G. W.
R., 24 C. P. (Ont.), 429.
[279] Longmore _v._ G. W. Rw., 19 C. B. (N. S.) 183.
[280] Bridges _v._ N. London, etc., L. R., 6 Q. B. 377.
[281] Welfare _v._ London & Brighton Rw., L. R., 4 Q. B. 693; Stott
_v._ G. T. R., 24 C. P. (Ont.), 347.
[282] Crafter _v._ Metropolitan Rw., L. R., 1 C. P. 300.
[283] Shepperd _v._ Midland Rw. Co., 20 W. R. 705; but see _ante_, p. 9.
[284] Railway Act, 1868, § 20, ss. 5 and 6 (Can.).
[285] Railway Act, 1868, § 20, s. 5.
[286] Ibid. § 20, s. 2.
[287] 34 Vict. c. 43, § 6 (Can.).
[288] Addison on Torts, 3d ed. 447.
[289] Redfield on Rail., vol. ii., p. 276.
[290] Le Blanche _v._ L. & N. W. Rw., 34 L. T. R. 25.
[291] Becke _v._ G. W. R., 18 Sol. J. 972.
[292] Denton _v._ G. N. Rw., 5 Ell. & Bl. 860; _In re_ Oxlade, 1 C. B.
(N. S.), 454; Heirn _v._ McCaughan, 32 Miss. 17.
[293] Gordon _v._ M. & L. Rw., 52 N. H. 596.
[294] Sears _v._ Eastern Rw., 14 Allen, 433.
[295] Redfield on Railways, vol. ii., p. 277 n.
[296] Hamlin _v._ G. N. R., 1 H. & N. 408, and as to damages for remote
and collateral consequences, see Story _v._ N. Y. & H. Rw., 2 Selden,
85; Horner _v._ Wood, 16 Barb. 386.
[297] Le Blanche _v._ L. & N. W. R., 34 L. T. R. 25; reversed on
Appeal, W. Notes, May 27, 1876.
[298] Becker _v._ L. & N. W. Rw., cited in 10 C. L. J. 311.
[299] Weed _v._ P. R. Rw., 17 N. Y. 362.
[300] Benson _v._ New Jersey Rw. Co., 9 Bosw. 412.
[301] Hurst _v._ Gt. Western Rw., 34 L. J. C. P. 265; Robinson _v._ The
same, 35 L. J. C. P. 123.
[302] Addison on Torts, p. 487.
[303] Welfare _v._ London & Brighton Rw. Co., L. R., 4 Q. B. 693.
[304] Briggs _v._ Grand Trunk Rw. Co., 24 U. C. Q. B. 510, 516.
[305] McDonald _et ux. v._ Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 26 Iowa, 124.
[306] L. R., 3 Exch. 150.
[307] Caswell _v._ Boston & Worcester Rw., 98 Mass. 194.
[308] Forsyth _v._ Boston & Alb. Rw., 103 Mass. 510.
[309] Cornman _v._ Eastern Counties Rw., 4 H. & N. 781; see also
Blackman _v._ London, B., & S. C. Rw., 17 W. R. 769.
[310] Hogan _v._ S. E. Rw., 28 L. T. (N. S.), 271.
[311] Jackson _v._ Metropolitan Rw. L. R. 10 C. P. 49.
[312] Crafter _v._ Metropolitan Rw. Co., L. R., 1 C. P. 300. Where on
the platform there were two doors in close proximity to each other,
the one for necessary purposes, had painted over it the words “For
gentlemen,” the other had over it “Lamp room.” The plaintiff having
occasion to go to the former, inquired its whereabouts and was directed
to it: by mistake he opened the door of the lamp room, fell down some
stairs, and was injured: _Held_, that in the absence of evidence that
the place was more than ordinarily dangerous, a nonsuit was right.
Toomey _v._ London B. & S. C., 3 C. B. (N. S.), 146.