off in the darkness somewhere else,31 or climb over a locked gate and go in another direction than the one intended for passengers to follow.32 All the courts agree that a railroad company is bound to exercise reasonable care in keeping the stairways in its stations in safe and suitable condition, but they seem to differ in their views as to what will constitute such reasonable care. The rule in Illinois in this respect seems to be much more strict than that in New York.33 So the sidewalk adjoining the depot over which passengers are invited to pass to reach or depart from the waiting room must be maintained in a reasonably safe condition, and this or wanton injury. Railroad Co. v. Oberhoefer, 76 Ill. App. 672. So when a passenger leaves a train voluntarily for the sole purpose of continuing his journey on foot, the railroad company is under no obligation to furnish him a safe path for his further progress. Buckley v. Railroad Co., 161 Mass. 26, 36 N. E. Rep. 583. So where a passenger has a safe route to the eating house open to him and chooses a path by which he may be injured by trucks being unloaded from the baggage cars, the company is not liable. Duvernet v. Railroad Co., 49 La. Ann. 484, 21 So. Rep. 644. 31. Sturgis v. Railway Co., 72 Mich. 619. See, also, Bennett v. Railroad Co., 57 Conn. 422; Parsons v. Railroad Co., 85 Hun, 23, 32 N. Y. Supp. 598. 32. Railroad Co. v. Harrison 100 Ill. App. 211. 33. In Railroad Co. v. Keegan, 210 Ill. 150, 71 N. E. Rep. 321, affirming 112 Ill. App. 28, the stairs of the station were icy and the plaintiff (appellee) fell to the bottom. The court said: "A number of other witnesses who arrived at the station about the time the appellee fell, or were called there to assist in removing her to her home, testified that the steps were covered with slush, snow and ice, and were very slippery. They concurred in saying a coating of slush, snow and ice covered the step from 12 to 3 inches thick. The appellant did not attempt to contest their statements, but sought to excuse itself on the ground that it had two or three men present whose duty it was to keep its platforms and said stairway free from slush, snow and ice. The stairway in question was the only means of egress and ingress to and from the station of appellant, and was used exclusively by its patrons. It was the duty of the appellant to use reasonable care to keep said stairway in a reasonably safe condition, and, in view of the evidence heretofore referred to, the questions whether it used such reasonable care, and what was the condition of the steps at the time of the injury, duty as to their maintenance rests upon the railroad company.34 If the car in which a passenger is seated does not reach the platform,35 and he is invited by some one in authority to alight,36 the company will be liable for injuries sustained by him which are caused by its failure to provide a way which is reasonably safe for him to reach the platform. So where in consequence of there being a train ahead, the one in which the plaintiff was could not be brought up to the platform, and she was requested by a servant of the company to alight where she was, the distance from the floor of the carriage to the were questions of fact for the jury. The fact that the appellant had men present, whose duty it was to remove the slush, snow and ice from the steps, would not excuse it for a failure to keep the stairway in a reasonably safe condition for use by persons seek ing to take passage upon its trains, if such employes failed and neglected to use due diligence to remove the slush, snow and ice deposited upon said steps. The trial court did not err in declining to take the case from the jury, but properly left to them the question whether the appellant used proper diligence to keep said steps in a reasonably safe condition under the circumstances as disclosed by the evidence." In Kelly v. Railroad Co., 112 N. Y. 443, a passenger going from an elevated railroad train about half past five in the morning, fell and received fatal injuries while going down the steps leading from the station to the street. A substantial hand-rail was provided for the steps and each step was covered with rubber. The steps were covered by a roof projecting about a foot on each side of the steps, but the sides were open above the hand-rail. During the night there had been a severe storm of sleet and snow which continued till about four o'clock that morning, and streets, steps. sidewalks and all exposed places were slippery. No ashes or sawdust had been sprinkled on the steps nor had they yet been cleaned off. The trial court held the defendant practically to the requirement of the greatest care and skill which human foresight could think of, but the court of appeal disapproved of this, evidently considering that there was no duty on the part of a railway company to keep men continuously at work removing slush and snow during the progress of a storm. 34. O'Reilly v. Railroad Co., 44 N. Y. Supp. 264, 15 App. Div. 79; s. c. 38 N. Y. Supp. 779, 4 App. Div. 139. 35. Railway Co. v. Harris, 103 Va. 635, 49 S. E. Rep. 997. 36. Railway Co. v. Smith, 103 Va. 326, 49 S. E. Rep. 487. ground being about three feet, and, with the assistance of another person, she jumped down and was injured by the concussion, the jury having found for the plaintiff, their verdict was upheld by the court on the ground that the company had not provided a place and means of descent from the car reasonably convenient.37 But in a case almost exactly the same as to its facts, where the train had overshot the platform, and the passenger undertook to descend from the car of her own accord, and without any invitation or suggestion to do so from any servant of the company, and was injured in the attempt, it was held that the company was not liable.38 It will be negligence, however, for the railroad company to permit a freight train on a side track to block the crossing or passage way to the depot at a time when a passenger train is taking on or discharging passengers.39 Sec. 938. Same subject-How when stational facilities are not owned by the railroad company-Union depots.-The duty of maintaining reasonably safe and sufficient stational facilities for the accommodation of its patrons devolves primarily upon the railroad company, and it cannot escape liability for injuries resulting from its failure to exercise ordinary care in their maintenance by showing that it delegated such duty to a third person, or that the stational facilities used by it were owned and controlled by another.40 Thus where a railroad company impliedly invited its passengers to leave its grounds by way of a stile over a barb wire fence, and a passenger was injured through a defect in the stile, it was held to be incumbent on the railroad company to show that it had exercised ordinary care in maintaining the stile in a condition suitable 37. Floy v. Railway Co., 18 C. B. (N. S.) 225. 38. Siner v. The Railway Co., L. R. 3 Exch. 150, L. R. 4 Exch. 117. 39. Railroad Co. v. Keller, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 957, 47 S. W. Rep. 1072; Mayne v. Railway Co., 12 Okl. 10, 69 Pac. Rep. 933. 40. Leveret v. Railway Co., 110 La. 399, 34 So. Rep. 579; Penfield v. Railway Co., 50 N. Y. Supp. 79, 26 App. Div. 413; Owen v. Railway Co., 69 Pac. Rep. 757, 29 Wash. 207; Houston, etc. R'y Co. v. McCarty, Tex. Civ. App. 89 S. W. Rep. 805. for its intended purpose, and that the fact that it was owned by another and was located on property upon which the company was not entitled to go to make repairs would be no excuse to it for permitting the stile to become unsafe for use by its passengers.41 So the fact that a depot which is used by a railroad company is owned by, and is under the control of a union depot company cannot relieve the railroad company from liability for injuries to its passengers caused by the unsafe condition of the depot or platform provided by the depot company unless, indeed, the duty to use a union depot, controlled by a separate corporation, is made obligatory by statute.42 And where two intersecting railroad companies make use of a common depot or platform, each company will owe to its passengers the duty of exercising ordinary care in maintaining the depot and platform in a reasonably safe condition.43 If a depot and platform, owned by one railroad company, are made use of by another company for the purpose of receiving and discharging its passengers, the former company must exercise ordinary diligence in maintaining the depot and platform in a reasonably safe and suitable condition, not only for use by its own, but the passengers of the latter company.44 But an intersecting railroad company, other than the owner of the depot premises, which runs no trains during the night, cannot be held liable for injuries sustained by a passenger of another railroad company caused by a failure to properly light the depot platform.45 Sec. 939. ($ 520.) Same subject-Passenger not justified in incurring danger to avoid inconvenience.-The result of the cases would seem to be that, while it is the duty of such carriers to provide accommodations reasonably convenient for 41. Cotant v. Railway Co., 125 180 Mass. 427, 62 N. E. Rep. 731. Iowa, 46, 99 N. W. Rep. 115, 69 L. R. A. 982. 44. Railway Co. v. Glenk, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 599, 30 S. W. Rep. 278. 45. Railway Co. v. Treadway, 142 Ind. 475, 40 N. E. Rep. 807. passengers awaiting the arrival of trains, or who may be put off at their stations, the primary consideration is the safety, and not the comfort, of such passengers; and to say, because the carrier has not provided comfortable accommodations, that therefore the passenger may ignore the ordinary dictates of prudence and hold it responsible for the consequences, is to say that when the choice is between danger and discomfort the party may choose the dangerous course and hold the carrier responsible, a position which neither reason nor law will support. There could be no plausible ground upon which he could be held liable under such circumstances, unless "the inconvenience is so great that it is reasonable to get rid of it by an act not obviously dangerous and executed without careless 46. Per Brett, J., in Adams v. The Railway Co., L. R. 4 C. P. 739. In this case the door of the carriage in which the plaintiff was being carried flew open several times. There was room in the carriage for the plaintiff to sit away from the door, and the train would have stopped at the alighting station in three minutes. The door having opened a fourth time, the plaintiff endeavored to shut it, and in doing so used both hands, and, not holding on with either, fell out and was hurt. maining still and in danger if he attempts to escape, then if he attempts to escape, any injury that he may sustain in so doing is a consequence of the company's negligence; but if he is only suffering some inconvenience, and to avoid that he voluntarily runs into danger and injury ensues, that cannot be said to be the result of the company's negligence. It is hardly necessary to say that though I use the words 'danger' and 'inconvenience,' yet if the inconvenience is very great and the danger run in avoiding it very slight, it may not be unreasonable Smith, J.: "He was ob- to incur that danger. Here, howviously doing that which was dangerous, it was said, and the ground upon which the plaintiff puts his case is that it was necessary to do so to obviate the results of the defendants' negligence. I quite agree that if the negligence of a railway company puts a passenger in a situation of alternative danger, that is to say, if he will be in danger by re ever, I see no proof that the plaintiff was suffering any inconvenience; certainly none comparable to the danger he ran in endeavoring to close the door in the way he did." Brett, J.: "I think the jury were justified in finding that the defendants were negligent; but the immediate result of their negligence was not any peril to |