Malcom v. Richmond & Danville Railroad

11 S.E. 187, 106 N.C. 63

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: February 5, 1890
• Status: Published

Opinion

Shepherd, J.:

Whatever may be the duty which the law imposes upon railroad companies in respect to giving signals when their trains are approaching crossings and regular stations, it is clear that it has no application to the case before us.

The Supreme Court of Alabama in Railroad v. Hawk, 18 Eng. and Am. R. R. Cases, 194, in construing statutes requiring such signals to be given, says: “These precautions, so far as applicable to persons, are intended obviously for the benefit of the traveling public, and others who have a right to be warned of approaching trains, for their personal protection against injury. Passengers who are on the trains are not ordinarily included in the letter or spirit of the statute. They do not need such signals of warning for their protection, and they cannot, therefore, be construed to be entitled to them.” Railroad v. Bendrow, 92 Pa. St., 495.

The place of this accident was a mere wood station, and the train only stopped there for the purpose of taking on wood. The defendant was under no duty to give signals at such a place, except, perhaps, for the purpose of warning its employees, and they alone could take advantage of any omission in this respect.

Apart from this, however, we are of the opinion that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. “Railroad companies are only bound to exercise due care that a passenger is not injured through their fault, and are not required to exercise such a supervision over- him as absolutely prevents his being injured by his own fault. In other words, if a passenger voluntarily puts himself in a dangerous position he cannot claim indemnity from the company.” 2 Wood’s Railway Law, § 303. “The company, as held in some of the cases, cannot be expected to treat its passengers as children, or to put them under restraint. Passengers must take the responsibility of informing themselves concerning the every-day incidents of railway traveling, and the company could do business upon no other basis.” Mitchell v. Railroad, 12 Am. and Eng. R. R. Cases, 165.

The plaintiff must have been aware of the dangerous position in which he placed himself. He was warned of this danger by the regulation of the defendant forbidding passengers to ride upon platforms; he must have known of the sudden startings and joltings peculiar to freight trains, and he must also have known, when he placed himself upon the platform, that the train was likely to start at any moment. Notwithstanding all this, he leaves his seat in the coach and puts himself in this dangerous position, without even taking the simple precaution of supporting himself by holding to the railing, or anything else.

That no recovery can be had under such circumstances is, it seems to us, too plain for further discussion. See Wood’s Railway Law, supra, and'the notes.

There was no error in the ruling of the Court.

Affirmed.