alighted, from the signboard and chat alight- | Otto Payne, leaving said train at the place he ing place, are questions of importance in this left same, were liable to resort to, and be, and case, as will be more apparent later on. The attempt to cross and pass over, and were liapetition alleges that the plaintiff was carried ble to fall and be precipitated into, and to be injured, and that said unsafe and dangerous by, and required to alight from the train at place was so situated that the said William a point west of, the station, and by reason Otto Payne was liable to resort to, and be thereof, not being familiar with the sur- injured thereby, if put off and required, or roundings in which he found himself, and permitted, to leave said train, as hereinafter because of the darkness, and of the failure of stated, in the nighttime, and when it was dark, the defendant to provide lights, or to direct all of which said Walker D. Hines, Director or warn him, he took the way which led him General of Railroads, as aforesaid, and his said to where he fell, and sustained the injuries predecessor in office and their agents, servants, and employees so running and operating said railroad and passenger trains thereon, knew, or by the exercise of due care under the circumstances could have known, before the time said William Otto Payne was injured, as hereinafter stated.

for which he sues."

Since a determination of the case requires consideration of the character and relative location of many physical objects at and near the station, and the immediate point where the accident occurred, and the other circum- "Plaintiff further states that said Edgebrook stances as well under which plaintiff left the Station, so maintained, and used, and operated train, and also because it is contended here by said Walker D. Hines, Director General of by defendant that failure to light the station office, was so situated that a passenger being Railroads, as aforesaid, and his predecessor in grounds is not alleged, nor was it alleged discharged thereat could leave the same, and that failure to light was a cause of plaintiff's said premises, by way of a passageway directly going where he did after he left the train, opposite the same and, on the north side of said the contents of the petition as to these mat- railroad tracks, which led to a street and ters may best be shown by following the lan-highway in the city of Maplewood, St. Louis guage used therein in that regard. county, Mo., and that westwardly from said After pleading formal matters, and alleg-Edgebrook Station there was no road, street, ing that Walker D. Hines, as Director Gen- or passageway, or means of ingress or egress to and from defendant's said tracks and right eral of Railroads, was in charge and control of way, leading to a street or highway for a of the operation of the train and property of distance of about 1,500 feet, where there was the railroad company, and that plaintiff a highway northwardly from another station boarded and became a passenger on said known as Lake Junction Station, situated on train at Union Station in the city of St. said right of way and on the north side of said Louis, at 6:35 p. m. on the evening in ques- railroad tracks; that on the south side of tion, and the duty of the Director General, tion to said Lake Junction Station there was no said railroad tracks from said Edgebrook Stahis agents, and employees to stop said train road, street, or highway or passageway leading at and opposite the station, and at a place from said railroad right of way and premises. reasonably safe for passengers to get out of the train, the petition continues:

"Plaintiff further states that said Edgebrook Station is situated in St. Louis county, Mo., about 7.57 miles west of Union Station in the city of St. Louis, Mo., and that, about 300 feet west of the said Edgebrook Station, on the south side of the said line or railway, there was at said time what is known and called a section or tool house, and that, about 800 feet westwardly from said section or tool house, a road or passageway runs under said railroad tracks across said right of way, of about the width of 8 feet and of about the depth of 15 feet, over which the tracks of said railroad were extended by means of a trestle or bridge, which said road or passageway was then and there uncovered and unguarded, and said trestle or bridge, though floored with ties placed solidly against each other, had no banisters or side handrails thereon, and by reason thereof the said trestle, or bridge, and premises at said point, and road and passageway under said tracks, were unsafe and dangerous and constituted a dangerous pitfall on the premises so controlled, and used, and operated by said Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, as aforesaid, and at a place on said right of way and premises into which passengers leaving trains at said Edgebrook Station and Lake Junction Station and the said William

"Plaintiff further states that said William Otto Payne was carried past said Edgebrook Station by the said Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, as aforesaid, and his agents, servants, and employees in charge of and operating said train, and that the train upon which William Otto Payne was then and there riding and being carried as a passenger, as aforesaid, was stopped by the said Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, as aforesaid, and his agents, servants, and employees in charge and operating the same, at a point on said railroad right of way a distance of about 400 feet westwardly, and past and beyond, said Edgebrook Station, and that said station was called, and said William Otto Payne was invited and directed by said Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, as aforesaid, and his agents, servants, and employees in charge of and operating said train, to leave the same at said point, and near said section or tool house, and at a point about 1,100 feet eastwardly from said Lake Junction, and at a point about 800 feet eastwardly from said road and passageway, or bridge, and into which passageway the said William Otto Payne was caused to fall and to be injured, as hereinafter stated.

"Plaintiff further states that it was a dark night, and that it was then and there dark at said place, and there were no lights at or near said Edgebrook Station, nor at the place where

(252 S.W.)

ing of the proximity of said dangerous crossing over said tracks on said right of way, and of said dangerous place; failing to give plaintiff any notice or warning of the danger of walking westwardly along and over said right of way, and of said dangerous place; failing to give plaintiff any notice or warning of the danger of walking westwardly along said path and traveled way on said right of way; inviting, directing, and permitting plaintiff to leave said train at said point about 400 feet westwardly from said Edgebrook Station, and near said uncovered and unguarded passageway across said right of way, and under said tracks in the nighttime, and when it was dark, and said place was not reasonably well lighted; failing to light said Station Edgebrook; failing to light said traveled way and path between the place where plaintiff was invited, and directed, and required to, and did, leave said train and to light the said road or passageway under said tracks and said trestle or bridge at the place where plaintiff was injured, and the premises at the place where plaintiff left, and got off of, said train, and premises at the place where plaintiff was liable to, and did,

said William Otto Payne was so invited, and required, and directed to leave and get off the train, nor were there any lights on and along, or near, said right of way between said Edgebrook Station and said Lake Junction Station, and that said William Otto Payne did not then and there know he had been carried past said station, and he was then and there unfamiliar with the surroundings at the place where he was so invited, directed, and required to, and did, leave said train, as aforesaid, and Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, as aforesaid, his agents, servants, or employees, in charge of and operating said train, failed to inform him that he had been carried past said station, or of the place he was alighting from said train, and failed to inform him of said unsafe and dangerous place on said right of way and premises, and failed to warn him of the danger thereof, and failed to direct him how to reach a place of safety, and that said William Otto Payne was then and there confused, and did not know or realize his exact location, and in order to leave said place, and premises, and right of way, and to extricate himself from the situation in which he had so been left by the said Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, as aforesaid, and his agents, servants, or employees, in charge and operating said train, and seeing a light in a westwardly direction from the place where he was, and westwardly from the place he after-resort, and pass over, and be, in order to wards was injured, as hereinafter stated, and ascertaining that a pathway led westwardly along said tracks and right of way, he walked westwardly on said railroad right of way and said premises, and over and along said path and traveled way, and_by_reason of the negligence of said Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, as aforesaid, and his agents, servants, or employees, aforesaid, was precipitated into, and caused to fall into, said road or passageway under said railroad tracks, down to the bottom thereof, a distance of about 15 feet, at a point where the same crossed said railroad right of way, and beside said trestle or bridge, whereby the said William Otto Payne was injured as follows."

The petition then sets forth at length the injuries received by plaintiff in falling under the circumstances described. The nature of these injuries as disclosed by the testimony will be given and considered later. After describing the injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff, the petition charges generally that the Director General and his agents, servants, and employees in charge of the train were guilty of negligence which caused said injuries, and follows this by charging specifically that said negligence consisted in negligently doing or failing to do the following things:

Carrying plaintiff past said Edgebrook Station; stopping said train and inviting, requesting, directing, and permitting plaintiff to alight from said train where he did alight; failing to give plaintiff notice that he had passed Edgebrook Station; failing to give plaintiff any notice or direction which way to proceed and go to reach a place of safety; failing to give plaintiff any notice or warn

reach a place of safety; failing to cover, guard, or otherwise protect said road or passageway under said tracks at said place so as to prevent plaintiff and passengers who might, and were, liable to resort to said place and premises from falling and being precipitated therein; failing to warn plaintiff of the danger of falling into said passageway under said railroad tracks and across said right of way; failing to keep and maintain said premises at said place, at which plaintiff and other passengers would likely resort, in a reasonably safe condition; and in suffering and permitting said premises at said place to which plaintiff would likely resort to be and remain unsafe and dangerous. And plaintiff's petition then "further states that, by reason of the defendant's said negligence, the said William Otto Payne was injured as aforesaid."

The answer of defendant after admitting formal allegations, was a general denial; following which, the defendant answered that the train in question left Union Station at 6:35 p. m., and arrived at Edgebrook Station at 6:55 p. m., on the day mentioned, and on the arrival was stopped at and opposite to the platform provided at said station Edgebrook for the discharge and reception of passengers; that all passengers on said train, including plaintiff, if he was a passenger on said train, bound for Edgebrook, were discharged by the employees of the Director General operating said train on the station platform at said station of Edgebrook, the same being the usual place for the discharge of passengers from all trains stopping at that station; that said train was not stopped el

Instruction 2 told the jury that, if the training, asserts that "the sole question is whether on arrival at Edgebrook was stopped opposite to, and parallel with, the chat or earth platform there maintained for the discharge of passengers, and said earth or chat, platform was reasonably safe, and defendant discharged plaintiff thereon in safety, the verdict should be for defendant.

(252 S.W.)

head bridge of the street railway company, under which ran defendant's tracks.

Opinion.

Lake Junction. The petition alleges that de- [ near the station, but north of defendant's fendant's agents and employees did not in- tracks and near the north end of the overform him that he had been carried past Edge brook Station, nor of the place where he was alighting, nor direct him how to reach a place of safety, nor warn him of the unsafe and dangerous place on the right of way. It charges the defendant with negligence in failing to light the station, to give plaintiff any notice or direction which way to proceed to safety, and to warn him of the danger of walking westwardly along the tracks, right of way, or traveled way on said right of way. It alleges that plaintiff, alighting in the place where he did, with which he was not acquainted, unlighted and in the darkness, was confused, and did not realize exactly where he was, and seeing a light westward toward Lake Junction Station, and a pathway along the tracks leading westward, walked in that direction.

It seems clear from the statements in the petition to which attention has just been directed, and from their relation to others and to the allegations as a whole, that the petition cannot be given the restricted meaning claimed for it by defendant's counsel. It must be allowed that the petition sufficiently charges, and connects, an alleged negligent failure to direct toward the safe and usual egress, to warn of the unsafe way, and to light the station grounds and right of way, with the alleged negligent acts of carrying plaintiff past the station, and permtting him to alight in the darkness at a place with which he was unacquainted Moreover, the defendant does not appear to have objected to the introduction of testimony showing that the station grounds and other places on the right of way were unlighted. This unlighted condition was made prominent by plaintiff in the testimony throughout the course of the trial,

There was no controversy upon the trial as to this unlighted condition, A witness for defendant, who had charge of the maintenance of defendant's track over the part here involved, testified that the distance from the sign at Edgebrook to the sluiceway into which plaintiff fell was 1,135 feet, and the distance from this sluiceway to Lake Junction Station was 268 feet. The testimony of all witnesses was in accord that there were no lights at Edgebrook, nor at any point on the right of way between that point and Lake Junction, except that east of Lake Junction a short distance, where there was a switch stand and near this a switch light. The plaintiff passed this switch going westwardly by the north side of the track. The switch light appears to have been located a short distance east of the sluiceway into which he fell. The only other light spoken of as being in the vicinity of Edgebrook Station, was a small street light at some distance north and west, not

[1] It is the duty of a railway company to properly light its station platforms during the arrival and departure of trains, taking on or discharging passengers; to exercise proper care in other respects, to furnish safe ingress and egress to its passengers who come upon the platform (Waller v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co., 59 Mo. App. 410, 429); and to so light the platforms of stations that passengers discharged from cars can proceed with safety, in the exercise of care, along the usual course taken by passengers to where they would leave the platform (Gerhart v. Wabash Railway, 110 Mo. App. 105, 84 S. W. 100; Sargent v. St. Louis, S. F. R. R. Co., 114 Mo. 348, 21 S. W. 823, 19 L. R. A. 460).

Following the subject of the condition existing as to lights, comes the question as to where the train from which plaintiff alighted was stopped, and whether it carried him by Edgebrook Station, and, if so, how far beyond. There is some conflict in the testimony on this important feature of the case, but the facts are not difficult of ascertainment. The defendant has two tracks at

Edgebrook Station running east and west. West-bound trains use the north, and eastbound trains the south, track. The train on which plaintiff rode was west bound, and plaintiff alighted from the rear, or east end, of the third car from the engine. The train was composed of five cars. The cars were described by the conductor as being 55 feet long. There was some testimony that the cars were of less length. West from the station sign "Edgebrook," which was on the south side of the tracks, at a distance of about 260 feet stood a section tool house, also on the south side of the tracks, and described as being 13 feet in length from east to west. West of the tool house, at a distance from it of about 150 feet, was the long overhead bridge of the street railway, under which defendant's tracks passed. The whole distance from the sign "Edgebrook" to the overhead bridge was said to be 426 feet, by a witness who had measured the distance. The plaintiff testified that, when he got off on the north side from the rear end of the third car from the engine, he "must have been 25 or 50 feet from the bridge." He says after the train drew past he saw the outline of the tool house. This, he testified later on, was east of where he got off, but, he said, he did not at the time know the kind of building it was. The two cars of this train next to the engine were dark, and spoken of by witnesses as "deadhead."

Paul Brown, a boy of 14 living a short dis- | He testified that no one got off the train at tance from Edgebrook, called by the de- Edgebrook that night. The engineer and fendant, testified that on the night in ques- fireman on the train did not testify. tion he rode in the dark, or deadhead, car of this train next to the engine, and got out at Edgebrook on the south side of the train. On direct examination he said he "got off of it between 50 and 75 feet from the street car bridge." On cross-examination on this subject he testified:

"The carrier is not absolved from liability, nor from this high degree of care, merely bevery act of alighting nor at the very spot or cause the passenger is not injured while in the moment where and when he alighted (Cossitt v. Railroad, supra; Atkinson v. Railroad, 90 Mo. App. 489, loc. cit. 497), and the carrier is, of course-as has been repeatedly held-charged with notice of the conditions at and immediately adjacent to the spot where it discharges pasThe conductor, beyond saying in his tes-is put off at an unsafe place and is injured in sengers from its conveyances. If a passenger timony that the train stopped at Edgebrook consequence, the negligence of the carrier is that night, did not undertake to speak more considered to be the proximate cause of the definitely than that as to where it stopped. injury. Cossitt v. Railroad, supra."