PLATFORMS AND ALIGHTING.
Right to Safe Ingress, Egress, and Regress.--Defective Platforms.--The
Englishman and the C’mum cat’or.--Getting out of Cars.--Train not
at Platform.--Calling out Name; is it Invitation to alight?--Ladies
jumping.--Hoop-skirts.--Must have Safe Place to alight.--Leaving Train
in Motion.
“Well, here we are at last at H.,” said my friend who was learned in
the law.
“Yes, now we have a chance of getting some grub (carefully collated
from the plates of those who were here before us), and taking the
epidermal covering off the interior of our mouths with a scalding
decoction dignified by the name of tea,” I replied.
“Ding-dong-all gone--come along--one-all,” sounded forth the bell of
the refreshment-room, as the train drew up to the platform, and all
the weary travellers sprang up eager to stretch their limbs and to
replenish the inner man. Out they rushed. Night had thrown her sable
mantle (she has no other except for moonlight wear) over nature’s
tired bosom, so some of our fellow travellers, in the gloom, were
precipitated into a hole in the platform, which the company carelessly
suffered to be there--yawning open-mouthed--unmindful of the fact that
passengers have the same rights to safe ingress, egress, regress, and
progress over the stations and platforms at the intermediate places
where the trains stop for refreshment, as they have at the termini of
the line;[413] although it would appear that where a stoppage is made
only for the purposes of the railway, and people are not expected to
get in or out, the rights of the travelling public and the liability of
the company are both greatly curtailed.[414] As soon as one procures a
ticket he is to be regarded as a passenger, and is entitled to a safe
passage to his seat.[415]
Though the unfortunates kissed mother earth, they were not seriously
damaged; one indeed--as a medical witness afterwards put it--suffered
“from a severe contusion of the integuments under the left orbit,
with a great extravasation of blood and ecchymosis in the surrounding
cellubas, having also a considerable abrasion of the cuticle,” or, as
the judge in common-place Anglo-Saxon expressed it, “had a black eye.”
Soon comestibles of all sorts, kinds, and descriptions were vanishing
rapidly by means of down grades into sub-waistcoat and sub-bodice
regions.
When we had finished our repast, the train still seemed
quiescent,--appeared as motionless as a painted ship upon a painted
ocean,--so it was suggested that a little of something slightly
stronger than tea might not be unpalatable; but, alas! spirits were
tabooed on the line, so there was nothing for it but to make a foray
into the adjoining neighborhood for additional stimulants. A porter
kindly showed the way to a public house on the opposite side of the
highroad passing the station. We were soon all practising with great
success at the bar, but while enjoying ourselves to the full, the
engine-bell rang out sharp and clear on the frosty air. Off we all
rushed helter-skelter, and to save time, instead of returning by the
way we came, we took what we thought was a bee-line for the station
lights (but which turned out to be the engine’s) across some unfenced
ground. Before we well knew where we were we were all tumbling
pell-mell, one over the other, into a wide ditch some three feet
deep. However, we gained the cars in time, and then one of our chance
acquaintances--who, having been leading in the race, went down first
and was trampled upon by the rest--found that his arm was badly hurt;
so the Q. C. and myself tried to console him with the assurance that he
was safe to recover a verdict against the company if he only entrusted
his case into the hands of either of us, for a railway company is bound
so to fence its station that the public will not be misled, by seeing a
place unfenced, into injuring themselves by passing that way, it being
the shortest road to the platform.[416] (Though by the way, a Canadian
court has considered that companies are not responsible if parties come
to grief through taking short cuts, if the proper way of ingress and
egress to the station is safe, convenient, and well-lighted;[417] but
in another case a man who broke his leg in two places by falling into
a culvert, constructed by the company in the highway, while leaving
the station on a dark and stormy night, got $2,000 damages.)[418] The
neglect properly to light a station, or to have a sufficient corps
of servants to aid passengers in alighting at night, is evidence of
negligence.[419]
Thinking that the man was an American citizen, I told him that Mr. C.
J. Dillon, of the State of Iowa, had said on a comparatively recent
occasion that “railway companies are bound to keep in a safe condition
all portions of their platforms and approaches thereto to which the
public do and would naturally resort, and all portions of their
station-grounds reasonably near to the platforms, where passengers, or
those who have purchased tickets with a view to take passage in their
cars, would naturally or ordinarily be likely to go.”[420]
“And, my dear sir,” said the Q. C., who, more observant than myself,
had noticed a pile of H’s accumulating in front of the man, “there is
a much stronger English case, where one Martin arrived at a station
less than two minutes before the time for the train to leave, and while
running along the line--in a place where he should not have gone--in
order to reach the train which was a little ahead, he stumbled over
a switch handle, fell on his elbow, and was considerably hurt. The
jury considered that the company had been guilty of negligence and
want of proper care, and gave Martin £20, and the court would not
interfere.”[421]
“Vell, hi think the Hinglish case is the one for my money,” quoth our
new found friend. “Hand hi’ll rub my harm with a little hof this to
prevent any ’arm,” he added, producing a pocket comforter that Job
never knew of.
“Don’t waste good stuff that way,” said Mr. Smith. “Apply it
internally, and rub your arm with the bottle.”
“Ho-ho-ho!” laughed John Bull at the wretched joke, which doubtless was
first perpetrated “when the Memnonium was in all its glory.” He took
the advice, however, and the brandy with a vengeance.
Some little while after I saw him steadying himself as he stood up on
the seat, and poking with his stick at the top of the car: supposing he
was striving to open the ventilator, I paid little attention to him.
In a few minutes the train suddenly stopped,--in a few seconds more the
conductor came rushing into the car, excitedly asking if any one had
pulled the rope or communicator.
“C’mum ’cat’or?” asked J. Bull, “I wang the bell for some bwandy
’n-vater. And dooced ’ard work hi ’ad to reach hit. Where’s the
’andle?”[422] Speedily the train was again under weigh.
At length, after several hours more of journeying we arrived at our
destination, thankful that as yet all bones were safe and sound. Alas,
I was hallooing before I was out of the wood, for as I emerged, the
light being very dim, I fancied I was stepping on the platform, but as
I landed violently on the ground I found that the car was some feet
beyond the platform. Of course railways should bring their trains to
a halt at places convenient for passengers to alight. Bringing a car
to a solemn stand-still at a spot at which it is unsafe to get out,
under circumstances which warrant one in believing that it is intended
he shall alight and that he may do so in safety (without giving him
warning of his danger), amounts to negligence on the part of the
company, for which an action may be maintained if the passenger has not
in any way contributed towards the accident.[423] This highly sensible
rule was adopted in the case of one Praeger, where--as I afterwards
found--Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, of Geneva award renown, said: “I
adopt most readily the formula which has been suggested as applicable
to these cases, viz., that the company are bound to use reasonable care
in providing accommodation for passengers, and that the passengers
are also bound to use reasonable care in availing themselves of the
accommodation provided for them.”[424] Of course, if it had been
daylight, and I could have used my eyesight to any practical purpose,
and had noticed that the car was not in the ordinary position with
regard to the platform, I would certainly have exercised a little more
caution in getting out and not have been such a ninny-hammer as to step
down in the way I did, for I can assure the general public, that it is
anything but agreeable to step upon thin air and be thrown violently
upon one’s nasal organ,--which always seems tremendously projecting
on such occasions,--abrasing one’s elbows and knees. t As I had my
homeward journey to perform by rail, and there seemed a chance of my
being reduced to an atomic condition before I once again saw the wife
of my bosom, I then, for the benefit of my numerous readers (for, of
course, I meant to publish a book, as every one does nowadays), dotted
down a few decisions which I thought migh be useful for them to bear
in mind in case they ever came to grief in alighting from a railway
train; and here they are _pro bono publico_.
(N. B.--Those frivolous persons who only read to pass the time, had
better turn at once to the next chapter.)
Where the train overshot the platform so that the car in which one
Whitaker was sitting stood opposite to the parapet of a bridge, the
top of which in the dusk looked like the platform; the porters having
called out the name of the place, W. getting out on the parapet in the
_bonâ fide_ belief that he was stepping on the platform, fell over and
was injured, but recovered from the company. Bovill, C. J., held that
on this occasion there was a clear invitation to alight at a dangerous
place, and that W. was misled by the appearance of the parapet, and so
distinguished the case from the Bridges one, to which I will refer in
a moment or two.[425] Where in the dark, a passenger on alighting fell
into a culvert, over which the car had stopped, the company were held
liable.[426]
Owing to the length of the train in which a Mr. and Mrs. Foy were
journeying, there was not room for all the cars to be drawn up at the
platform, and some of the passengers were desired to get out upon the
line beyond it. The distance from the carriage to the ground was only
three feet; Mrs. F. (instead of sensibly availing herself of the two
steps of the carriage) with the aid of Mr. Foy jumped from the first
step to the ground, and--not being a practised athlete or gymnast
but a sweet little thing--came down upon the ground like a barrel of
sugar with such a thud that the vertebræ of her back were jarred and
the spine injured. The jury found that the company were guilty of
negligence in not providing reasonable means of alighting, and that the
lady had not contributed to the accident, and they gave her £500 to pay
her doctor’s bills; and the court considered the verdict warranted and
declined to interfere with the damages.[427] Bovill, Q. C., urged that
if the lady, instead of jumping as she did, had turned herself round
and availed herself of the assistance of both steps and of the handles
of the carriage, the accident would not have happened; but Williams,
J., said severely that “in the present fashion of female attire, the
mode of descent suggested by the learned counsel would be scarcely
decent!” This judgment was given in 1865, and as fashions change two or
three times a year, one can hardly decide what a lady might or should
do in this present year of grace, especially as the virtuous judge did
not insinuate wherein in such a descent would lie the lack of woman’s
crowning glory, modesty.
While speaking of ladies and their attire I may mention that Mrs.
Mary Poulin, while alighting from a Broadway car, with her youngest
hopeful in her arms, caught her steel hoop-skirt upon a nail in the
car platform; this threw her down, and she was dragged some distance,
and seriously injured and greatly frightened. The company tried to
escape liability by the ungallant plea that hoops were not a necessary
article of female apparel and that if Mrs. P. was determined to wear
such inflated skirts she ought to have exercised more care than is
required of a brother in sit-upons; the court, however, differed from
the company, and considered that the fair lady had been guilty of no
negligence, and that if the railroad carried passengers adorned with
crinolines they must see to their safety.[428]
Old Siner and his wife arrived in daylight at Rhyl Station and the
carriage in which they were overshot the platform; the passengers were
neither told to keep their seats nor to get out, nor did the train
move until it started on its forward journey. After exhausting his
stock of patience, S. following the example of his fellow travellers
alighted, without asking the company’s servants to back the train to
the platform or holding any communication with them whatever. The wife
then, standing on the iron steps of the carriage, grasped both her
husband’s hands and jumped down, straining her knee in the act. She
did not use the footboard. There was no evidence of any carelessness
or awkwardness except what might be inferred from these facts. In an
action brought against the company for this injury, the court held
(Kelly, C. B. _diss._) that there was no evidence of negligence in
the defendants, and that the accident was entirely the result of the
woman’s own act in awkwardly and carelessly jumping.[429] The _Foy_
case was distinguished, as there an express invitation to alight was
given.
Where a gentleman, the corneas of whose eyes were far more convex than
those of the generality of the genus _homo_, knowing well the station,
got out of the train while the carriage in which he had been sitting
was still in a tunnel, and in making his way to the platform stumbled
over some rubbish and fell, breaking his leg and otherwise injuring
himself so that he shortly died from the effects, it was held by the
House of Lords (reversing the decision of the court below) that the
train having come to a stand-still, the calling out the name of the
place was an invitation to alight, and that the company’s servants
calling out afterwards “Keep your seats,” showed that it had been
improvidently uttered, and therefore furnished evidence of negligence,
and that the personal representative of Mr. Bridges was entitled to
recover against the company.[430] The shortsightedness of the deceased
imposed no additional duties on the company. In another case the court
thought that the conduct of a traveller, who fell down between the car
and the platform, which curved gracefully back from the line, amounted
to contributory negligence and so made absolute a rule to enter a
nonsuit.[431]
In Bridges’ case it was unanimously held by the whole court, that the
calling out the name of a station is not in itself an intimation to
the passengers to alight; whether it is so or not must depend on the
circumstances of each particular case. Willes, J., said, “Nobody who
travels by rail who has a head on his shoulders would ever say that
calling out the name was an invitation;” but many a man with a head
on his shoulders, and with something in that head too, acts as if he
did,--indeed C. J. Redfield says that Bridges only did what the great
majority of men would have done under similar circumstances. (In fact
Redfield considers that in the late cases the English courts have
overstrained things in favor of the companies.)[432] Baron Cleasby
thought that in reality the stopping of the train at the station is
the invitation to alight. Bovill, C. J., said that whether calling
out was a request to get out or not was a question for a jury.[433]
In a late case Mr. Justice Blackburn gave it as his decided opinion,
that calling out the name is merely an intimation to all on the train
that the place at which the cars are about to stop is that particular
station named; and he adds (most truthfully) that every person must
have heard porters at stations call out something which, if the
traveller happens to know the name of the place, is recognizable,
but if the name is not known, no reliable information is gained from
the porter’s cry.[434] In a still later case it was said that the
train having overshot the platform and the name of the place having
been called out, the omission of the company’s servants to caution
passengers not to alight until the train had been brought up at the
proper place was evidence of negligence, or according to Honeyman, J.,
negligence itself.[435]
Companies are bound to provide platforms, or safe places of deposit,
for passengers to alight on at their stations and to deliver them
there. If there is any difficulty in the passengers’ getting out,
the officers should assist them to do so.[436] If the place where
one is required to alight is in fact dangerous, it is his duty to
request the train to be put in its proper place; and this is a request
which no station-master would venture to refuse, knowing the risk
he would incur if an accident happened through his refusal. If the
defendants will not place the train properly, the plaintiff should stay
in the carriage. So, at least, said the judges in Siner _v._ Great
Western Railway (_supra_);[437] but we can well imagine the surprised
look--tinged strongly with scorn--of a conductor upon any one of our
Cis-atlantic railways, were he asked to move his train forwards or
backwards merely for the convenience of his living freight.
If a man persists in getting off a train while it is in motion,
especially if he has been warned by the conductor not to do so, he
has no claim against the company for any damage he may receive in the
act;[438] and so when one attempted to get on a train while moving
and was killed in the attempt, it was held, as a matter of law, that
no recovery could be had.[439] But otherwise where one lost his life
in jumping off by the direction of the conductor.[440] The courts of
Mississippi have laid it down clearly that it is the duty of railway
companies to announce audibly in each car the name of the station
reached and then allow sufficient time for the passengers safely to
leave the carriages; and that on the other hand it is the duty of the
passengers to use reasonable care, and to conform to the customs and
usages of the company so far as they know and understand them.[441]
If a company through neglect of their duty expose a passenger to
obvious peril, or grave inconvenience, and the traveller to escape
the threatened peril, or inconvenience, does something that is not
obviously dangerous (although it may be the cause of the injury) the
company will be liable.[442]
Where a man is so drunk that he cannot take care of himself, if the
conductor is aware of it, he must bestow upon him the requisite degree
of attention to save him from injury;[443] and so when a traveller is
sick.
Ah me! I fear that this long dilating will cause my Diary to be sent
To bind a book, to line a box,
Or serve to curl a maiden’s locks.
FOOTNOTES:
[413] McDonald _v._ Chicago, etc., 26 Iowa, 124.
[414] Frost _v._ Grand Trunk Rw., 10 Allen, 387.
[415] Warren _v._ Fitchburg Rw., 8 Allen, 227.
[416] Burgess _v._ G. W. R., 32 L. J. 76.
[417] Walker _v._ G. W. R., 8 U. C. C. P. 161.
[418] Fairbanks _v._ G. W. R., 35 Q. B. (Ont.), 523.
[419] Patten _v._ Ch. & N. W. Rw., 36 Wis. 413.
[420] McDonald _v._ Chicago. etc., 26 Iowa, 124.
[421] Martin _v._ Gt. Northern Rw., 16 C. B. 179; and see the case of
stumbling over the hampers, Nicholson _v._ Lancashire & York Rw., 3
Hurl. & C. 534.
[422] See _Punch_ for February, 1874.
[423] Cockle _v._ London & S. E. Rw. Co., L. R., 7 C. P. 721 (Ex. Ch.).
[424] Praeger _v._ Bristol & Exeter Rw., 24 L. T. (N. S.) 105.
[425] Whitaker _v._ Manchester & S. Rw. Co., L. R., 5 C. P. 464.
[426] Col. &. Ind. C. Rw. Co. _v._ Farrell, 31 Ind. 408.
[427] Foy & Wife _v._ London, B., & S. C. Rw. Co., 18 C. B. (N. S.),
225.
[428] Poulin _v._ Broadway, etc., Rw., 34 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 296.
[429] Siner _v._ G. W. R., L. R., 3 Ex. 150.
[430] Bridges _v._ North London Rw. Co., L. R., 6 Q. B. 377. In appeal
L. R., 7 H. L. 213.
[431] Praeger _v._ Bristol & Exeter Rw., L. R., 5 C. P. 460, n. 1; also
Plant _v._ Midland Rw. Co., 21 L. T. (N. S.), 836; and Harrold _v._
Great Western Rw., 14 L. T. (N. S.), 440.
[432] Redfield on Railways, vol. ii., p. 264.
[433] Whitaker _v._ Manchester & S. Rw., L. R., 5 C. P. 464.
[434] Lewis & Wife _v._ London C. & D. Rw., L. R., 9 Q. B. 69; Cockle
_v._ London & S. E. Rw., L. R., 5 C. P. 457 (Ex. Ch.), distinguished.
[435] Weller _v._ London, Brighton, & S. C. Rw., L. R., 9 C. P. 126.
[436] Memphis & Charleston Rw. _v._ Whitfield, 44 Miss. 466; Robson
_v._ N. E. Rw., L. R., 10 Q. B. 271.
[437] See also, Memphis & C. Rw. _v._ Whitfield, 44 Miss. 466.
[438] Ohio & Miss. Rw. _v._ Schiebe, 44 Ill. 460.
[439] Knight _v._ Ponchartrain Rw., 23 La. Ann. 462.
[440] Lambeth _v._ North Carolina Rw., 66 N. C. 494.
[441] Southern Rw. _v._ Kendrick, 40 Miss. 374.
[442] Adams _v._ Lancashire & Y. Rw., L. R., 4 C. P. 744.
[443] Giles _v._ G. W. R., 36 Q. B. (Ont.) 360.