Kemp v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

On the 10th day of December, 1906, between the Lours of 5 and 6 o’clock p. m., the plaintiff, in attempting to catch a moving train at Tarry town Heights station on the defendant’s road, slipped on the station platform and fell under the train, sustaining injuries for which he has recovered in this action. The defendant’s road was a single-track steam road. The station where the accident happened is located in a sparsely settled farming district. Between the waiting room and the track, and extending several feet in each direction along the track beyond the waiting room, was an uncovered station platform, 6 feet 6 inches wi'de. When the plaintiff was some ■distance from the station, he saw the train coming in and started to run. The train started up before he had reached the station. Without stopping to purchase a ticket, he ran up the steps, onto the platform, past the station, turned at the corner, and ran diagonally down the

I am not prepared to say that a railroad must keep every part of its station platforms at stations like that involved in this case entirely free from ice and snow at all times at the risk of being held guilty of negligence. Weston v. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 595 , was decided with reference to the platform of an elevated railroad station in a city. The situation at a station on a single-track steam road in a sparsely settled district is very different. Of course, the defendant had to use ordinary care to make the approach to its trains safe; but the plaintiff did not meet with his accident at the place on the platform where the defendant’s trains stopped to discharge and receive passengers. He had run down the platform away from the station in the attempt to catch and board the moving train, and the defendant had no reason to anticipate the accident that happened. We are all familiar with conditions following a sleet storm such as is described by the evidence in this case. The plaintiff must have observed those conditions. He himself says that he noticed that the road was slippery. Very likely, as he .says, he did not observe the condition of the station platform, as he was intent upon catching his train. His testimony shows plainly what happened and how it happened. He ran as fast as he could to the station platform, turned the corner, made a dash—a “spurt,” as he calls it—down the platform along with the moving train, and, when he saw that he could not board it, he had gathered such momentum that, in attempting to stop, his feet went out from under him and the accident happened. Doubtless the slippery condition of the sidewalk was a contributing cause, but the plaintiff’s own carelessness was certainly a concurring cause. If the plaintiff had actually seized hold of the handle of the car—he attempted to stop when within two feet of it—and had then lost his footing, we would have no doubt that he would be chargeable with contributory ■ negligence, even though the slippery platform was a concurring cause. If the moving train had not been there, we would agree, I think, that the plaintiff was careless in making a “spurt” down this slippery platform without noticing its condition, in view of the conditions following a sleet storm which are observable to every one; and he certainly cannot excuse his inattention to his surroundings by asserting that his

The judgment and order should be reversed.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted; costs to abide the event AH concur.