for not sufficiently lighting its station, and for not providing proper and sufficient accommodations for its passengers to depart safely from the station after their arrival, that he could recover for the injury.16 And where a person who intended to go on its cars as a passenger, arriving at the station when it was dark, and just as the train was about to start, while running along the line of the road to reach the train in time, stumbled over a switch handle and sustained an injury thereby, and sued the company for not properly lighting its station, and for otherwise negligently managing it, the jury having found that there was negligence on the part of the company, and having given damages to the plaintiff, the court refused to disturb the verdict.17 And in a great variety of other cases it has been held that the company is liable for an injury occasioned by its failure to properly light its station and its approaches and the surrounding premises.18

16. Nicholson v. The Railway 73 N. E. Rep. 861; s. c. 75 N. E. Co., 3 H. & C. 534.

17. Martin v. The Railway, 16 Com. B. 179.

18. Moses v. Railroad Co., 39 La. Ann. 649; Stewart v. Railroad Co., 53 Tex. 289; Forsyth v. Railroad Co., 103 Mass. 510; Beard v. Railroad Co., 48 Vt. 101; Alabama, etc. R. Co. v. Arnold, 50 Ala. 600; Buenemann v. Railway Co., 32 Minn. 390; Quaife v. Railway Co., 48 Wis. 513; Gaynor v. Railway Co., 100 Mass. 208; Fordyce v. Merrill, 49 Ark. 277; Peniston v. Railway Co., 34 La. Ann. 777; Texas, etc. R'y Co. v. Brown, 78 Tex. 397, 14 S. W. Rep. 1034; Alexandria, etc. R. Co. v. Herndon, 87 Va. 193, 12 S. E. Rep. 289; Railway Co. v. Wood, 104 Fed. 663 44 C. C. A. 118; Chadbourne v. Railroad Co., 104 Ill. App. 333; Railway Co. v. Treadway, 143 Ind. 689, 40 N. E. Rep. 807; Glenn v. Railroad Co., Ind. App.

Rep. 282; Sargent v. Railway Co., 114 Mo. 348, 21 S. W. Rep. 823, 19 L. R. A. 460, citing Hutch. on Carr.; Waller v. Railway Co., 59 Mo. App. 410; Green v. Railroad Co., 53 N. Y. Supp. 500, 31 App. Div. 412; Fox v. Mayor, etc. of City of New York, 39 N. Y. Supp. 309, 5 App. Div. 349.

In Missouri Pac. R'y Co. v. Neiswanger, 41 Kan. 621, 21 Pac. Rep. 582, plaintiff, a woman, had gone to defendant's station before dark to take a train, and, having purchased her ticket, awaited the train in the waiting-room. The train was long delayed, and about eleven o'clock in the night-time, plaintiff being urged by a call of nature sought a place to retire. As there were no closets or other like accommodations, and as there was no ticket or other agent present to direct her, she went out of the station accompanied by two

But where a person going to take a train arrives at the station after the last train has gone and remains thereafter for his own convenience, during which time the station master puts out the lights as the usual closing hour has arrived, such person is thereafter merely a licensee and not a passenger,

The

also, Wallace v. Railroad Co., 8 Houst. 529, 18 Atl. Rep. 818.

lady friends. The platform was pany was held not liable. See, not lighted and was raised about three feet from the ground, and had no railing or other guard. There was just sufficient natural light to enable the plaintiff to distinguish the platform from the ground, but not enough to enable her to see that they were not on the same level. She fell off the platform and was injured. railroad company was held liable, being negligent in not providing suitable accommodations, in not guarding its platform, and in not lighting it SO that passengers could see the danger. Compare this case with McKone v. Railroad Co., 51 Mich. 601, where a man, who had come to the depot to meet his wife who was expected on the train, was injured under like circumstances and for which the company was held liable. In Moses v. Railroad Co., 39 La. Ann. 649, the company left its sleeping-car standing outside the yard at a point reached by a sidewalk and usually lighted only by a city light. The company left some of its cars standing in such a position that they cut off this light from the walk. A passenger in seeking the car along the walk, no agent of the company being provided to show the way, fell off the walk and was injured. The company was held liable. Compare also with Reed v. Railroad Co., 84 Va. 231, where the com- thoughtless

In Railway Co. v. Turner, 85 Fed. 369, 29 C. C. A. 196, the facts were very similar to those in Railway Co. v. Neiswanger, the essential difference being that the passenger went to the edge of the platform for the purpose of sitting upon it. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in reversing the judgment of the trial court, said: "No parallel to this action is found in any recognized authorities. The case of Railway Co. v. Neiswanger (Kan. Sup.) 21 Pac. 582, principally relied upon by the court below, is not entirely this case, in that the plaintiff there did not purposely undertake to sit down on the edge of the platform, knowing that it was not protected, but undertook, under imperative necessity, to pass from the platform to seek permissible concealment under circumstances that did not admit of deliberate movement. The exoneration from contributory negligence in that case was extreme, and ought not to be extended, lest its application should lead to a practical establishment of the doctrine that a railroad company is to be treated as an absolute insurer of the safety of passengers waiting about its platform, however eccentric and

in their strolling

and he cannot recover for injuries sustained in leaving the station caused by the extinguishment of the lights.19 So the company is not liable where a person waiting at its depot recklessly walks off in the darkness caused by the temporary removal of the light,20 nor where it has furnished all the light which experience had shown to be necessary, though a passenger was, nevertheless, injured.21 And the failure of the railroad company to light its station cannot be held to be the proximate cause of an assault on a female passenger by a third person who enters the station while the passenger is seated there alone, and the company is consequently not liable for such injury.22

Sec. 937. Same subject-Duty in respect to providing means for getting to or from stations and trains. It is also the duty of passenger carriers by railroad to provide reasonably safe means of getting to or from their stations and trains.23 Thus, if a railroad company erects a bridge for more

movements. We prefer the better sustained rule recognized in Forsyth v. Railroad Co., 103 Mass. 570; Reed v. Railroad Co., 84 Va. 231, 4 S. E. 587; Bennett v. Railway Co., 57 Conn. 422, 18 Atl. 668; Railway Co. v. Hodges, (Tex. Civ. App.) 24 S. W. 563; Chewning v. Railway Co., (Ala.) 14 South 204. These cases support the rule that, although a railway company may be guilty of some negligence in not providing sufficient lights or railings about its platform, yet when these deficiencies are known, or are obvious to the passenger, and notwithstanding he sees fit voluntarily, without invitation from the company, and for his mere convenience to undertake to pass over the edge of the platform, without knowledge of its elevation, the law will not excuse his negligence in taking no other pre

caution than a casual look when the night is so dark as to deceive the eye in appearances. The passenger ought not to cast the consequences resulting immediately from his own reckless impulse upon the railway company for not fencing or patrolling its platform or flooding the ground around it with artificial lights."

19. Heinlein v. Railroad Co., 147 Mass. 136; Bradley r. Railway Co., 107 Mich. 243, 65 N. W. Rep. 102; Railway Co. v. Hodges, (Tex. Civ. App.) 24 S. W. Rep. 563.

20. Reed r. Railroad Co., 84 Va. 231, 4 S. E. Rep. 587.

21. Lafflin v. Railroad Co., 106 N. Y. 136.

22. Prokop v. Railway Co., (Tex. Civ. App.) 79 S. W. Rep. 101.

23. Collins v. Railway Co., 80

convenient access to its station, and the bridge falls,24 or if it fails to plank it or place proper guard rails around it, or to keep it in suitable repair,25 and injury results to a passenger or to a person intending to become such, it will be liable in damages. And where a train was reached by a narrow passage way of boards, such boards being only three or four inches in width, and the plaintiff was suddenly pushed from the passage way by a third person and severely injured, the railroad company was held guilty of negligence in failing to maintain a safe and adequate passage way for its passengers.26 A railroad company, however, is only bound to furnish one safe exit from its trains, provided such exit is sufficient for the number of passengers which it carries. But in the absence of knowledge that only one route has been provided by the company for leaving its trains, and in the absence of any direction or notice from the company to use a particular route, the passenger is at liberty to make use of any route which appears to him, while acting as a reasonably prudent person, to be designed for use by foot passengers; and, as to him, the company is bound to see that all such routes are reasonably safe and sufficient. Whether the passenger was justified in selecting a particular route, and whether, in attempting to pass over it in the condition it appeared to him to be in, he was in the exercise of reasonable care, and whether the route itself was reasonably safe and sufficient, are usually questions of fact for the jury.27 So if passen

Mich. 390; Cross v. Railway Co., 69 Mich. 363; Wallace v. Railroad Co., (Del.) 8 Houst. 529, 18 Atl. Rep. 818; Hoffman v. Railroad Co., 75 N. Y. 605; Burgess v. The Railway Co., 6 Com. B. (N. S.) 923; Railway Co. v. Evans, 52 Neb. 50, 71 N. W. Rep. 1062; Flanagan v. Railroad Co., 181 Pa. St. 237, 37 Atl. Rep. 341; Howland v. Railroad Co., 26 R. I. 138, 58 Atl. 683; Sullivan v. Canal Co., 72 Vt. 353, 47 Atl. 1084.

24. Longmore v. The Railway, 19 Com. B. (N. S.) 183.

25. Railroad Co. v. Foley, 53 Fed. 459, 3 C. C. A. 589, 10 U. S. App. 537; Watson v. Oxanna Land Co., 92 Ala. 320, 8 So. Rep 770; Gilmore v. Railroad Co., 154 Pa. St. 375, 25 Atl. Rep. 774.

26. Redner v. Railway Co., 73 Hun, 562, 26 N. Y. Supp. 1050.

27. Cazneau v. Railroad Co., 161 Mass. 355, 37 N. E. Rep. 311.

gers habitually, naturally, and with the acquiescence of the carrier, adopt a certain route, especially a route pointed out by the customs and methods of the carrier, it is the duty of the latter to take reasonable precautions to so guard and maintain it that passengers will not thereby suffer injury.28 It is immaterial in this respect whether the carrier furnished the route, or provided or constructed the means of passage or not. If, with full knowledge of the facts, it permits an unsafe and dangerous means to be provided and used, it is as much liable for an injury arising therefrom as though it had itself set up and maintained the dangerous way.29

But where the railroad company has provided all necessary stational facilities for enabling its passengers to enter or depart from its stations and trains, and such facilities are reasonably safe and convenient, it will, in respect to such facilities, have performed its full duty, and it cannot be bound to suppose that a passenger who does not know the way will neglect to avail himself of the means open to his sight30 and go

28. Texas, etc. R'y Co. v. Orr, to gather on such pathway, the 46 Ark. 182.

29. Collins v. Railway Co., 80 Mich. 390; Cross v. Railway Co., 69 Mich. 363; Beard . Railroad Co., 48 Vt. 101; Delaware, etc. R. Co. v. Trautwein, 52 N. J. L. 169, 19 Atl. Rep. 178; Keefe v. Railroad Co., 142 Mass. 251; Skottowe v. Railway Co., 22 Ore. 430, 30 Pac. Rep. 222, 16 L. R. A. 593, citing Hutch on Carr.; Schlessinger v. Manhattan R'y Co., 98 N. Y. Supp. 840. (In this case the approaches were owned by the city.)

A passenger was going along a pathway ordinarily used by passengers in getting to and from the carrier's passenger station, and while so doing, slipped and fell on an accumulation of ice which the company had permitted

ice having formed from waste water from a nearby pump. A slight snow concealed the mound of ice from the passenger's view. It was shown that the company had knowledge that this means of egress from its station was used by passengers. It was held that the company was liable for the injury even though it had provided another and safe way for the use of its passengers. Lemon r. Railway Co., 136 Mich. 647, 100 N. W. Rep. 22.

30. When a carrier has provided a safe and commodious exit from its train, a passenger who leaves a train and proceeds along the track, instead of to the safe exit provided, becomes a trespasser to whom the railroad company is only liable for willful