Gulf S.I.R. Co. v. Eaton

Mississippi Supreme Court

Gulf S.I.R. Co. v. Eaton

115 So. 726, 149 Miss. 572, 1928 Miss. LEXIS 64

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 27, 1928

DocketNo. 26963.

StatusPublished

This text of 115 So. 726 (Gulf S.I.R. Co. v. Eaton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gulf S.I.R. Co. v. Eaton, 115 So. 726, 149 Miss. 572, 1928 Miss. LEXIS 64 (Mich. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

*575 Smith, C. J.

The appellant, a common carrier, is engaged in transporting mail for the government. During, the year 1925, the appellee, under a contract with the government, carried mail from the post office at Seminary to the appellant’s mail car and from the car to the post office. In March, 1925, the appellant’s station house at Seminary was destroyed by fire, and, for reasons not necessary here to be set forth, it was not rebuilt until early in the next year. During the intervening time, the station was not provided with a waiting room and other conveniences of like character. The appellee sued the appellant and recovered a judgment against it for damages which he claimed to have sustained because of exposure to the weather while awaiting the arrival of the appellant’s trains that were transporting’ the mail, and which he would not have sustained had the appellant sea *576 sonably rebuilt its station house and included therein a ■waiting room kept properly heated. The court below was requested, and erroneously refused, to direct a verdict for the appellant.

The appellee, while at the station, was not, and did not intend to become, a passenger on any of the appellant’s trains, and therefore is not within the provisions of sections 4866 and 4867, Code of 1906 (sections 7651 and 7652, Hemingway’s Code 1927). L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Corlander, 129 Miss. 24, 91 So. 699. It is true that the appellee was on the appellant’s premises, under an implied invitation from the appellant so to be, for a purpose which was to their mutual advantage, and, consequently, the appellant owed him the duty to exercise reasonable care for his safety while on its premises (Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Jandera, 24 Okl. 106, 104 P. 339, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 535, 20 Ann. Cas. 316; Hale v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 60 Vt. 605, 15 A. 300, 1 L. R. A. 187), but did not owe him the duty of providing a room in which he could await the arrival of its trains. Compare Piper v. Boston & M. R. Co., 75 N. H. 228, 72 A. 1024.

Reversed, and cause dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*575 Smith, C. J.

The appellant, a common carrier, is engaged in transporting mail for the government. During, the year 1925, the appellee, under a contract with the government, carried mail from the post office at Seminary to the appellant’s mail car and from the car to the post office. In March, 1925, the appellant’s station house at Seminary was destroyed by fire, and, for reasons not necessary here to be set forth, it was not rebuilt until early in the next year. During the intervening time, the station was not provided with a waiting room and other conveniences of like character. The appellee sued the appellant and recovered a judgment against it for damages which he claimed to have sustained because of exposure to the weather while awaiting the arrival of the appellant’s trains that were transporting’ the mail, and which he would not have sustained had the appellant sea *576 sonably rebuilt its station house and included therein a ■waiting room kept properly heated. The court below was requested, and erroneously refused, to direct a verdict for the appellant.

The appellee, while at the station, was not, and did not intend to become, a passenger on any of the appellant’s trains, and therefore is not within the provisions of sections 4866 and 4867, Code of 1906 (sections 7651 and 7652, Hemingway’s Code 1927). L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Corlander, 129 Miss. 24, 91 So. 699. It is true that the appellee was on the appellant’s premises, under an implied invitation from the appellant so to be, for a purpose which was to their mutual advantage, and, consequently, the appellant owed him the duty to exercise reasonable care for his safety while on its premises (Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Jandera, 24 Okl. 106, 104 P. 339, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 535, 20 Ann. Cas. 316; Hale v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 60 Vt. 605, 15 A. 300, 1 L. R. A. 187), but did not owe him the duty of providing a room in which he could await the arrival of its trains. Compare Piper v. Boston & M. R. Co., 75 N. H. 228, 72 A. 1024.

Reversed, and cause dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 So. 726, 149 Miss. 572, 1928 Miss. LEXIS 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gulf-sir-co-v-eaton-miss-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack