{ "id": 1523328, "name": "St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Green", "name_abbreviation": "St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Green", "decision_date": "1908-01-13", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "117", "last_page": "121", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "85 Ark. 117" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "59 Ark. 185", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "112 N. Y. 442", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "65 Ark. 255", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 609322 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/65/0255-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 N. Y. 136", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2210423 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/106/0136-01" ] }, { "cite": "34 N. W. 621", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "74 la. 732", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 2059124 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/74/0732-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 Mo. 570", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 8843835 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "596" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mo/113/0570-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 Ark. 493", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "18 L. R. A. 599", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 Ark. 185", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 529, "char_count": 9045, "ocr_confidence": 0.704, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.1587173799288603e-07, "percentile": 0.7695220841060618 }, "sha256": "ce845de14fa4038ec98552b1834e2f0ec946fd9b13854ae9399d57ffcf3168f6", "simhash": "1:e8a3ab276e8a92ac", "word_count": 1624 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:26:10.611504+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Green." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Hart, J.,\n(after; stating the facts.) .Appellant claims that the first instruction given by the court was erroneous. The instructions are as follows:\n\u201cYou are instructed that the defendant railway company, if it undertook to render plaintiff assistance, was bound to the highest degree of care in securing the safety of the plaintiff in boarding its train, which is that degree of care which a very prudent person would have exercised under the circumstances; and if you find from the evidence that the defendant railway company, through its servants or employees, did undertake to assist plaintiff to board the train, and failed to discharge this duty, and plaintiff was injured thereby, your verdict should be for the plaintiff.\u201d\nCounsel for appellee to sustain the instruction quotes the following: \u201cThe carrier is bound to exercise care in securing the safety of passengers while boarding or alighting from its cars or other conveyances, and the degree of care required in the discharge of this duty is the highest care, or that degree of care which a very prudent person would have used under the circumstances.\u201d 6 Cyc. 611, and notes. A reference to the cases cited in the notes will show that the doctrine announced applies only where there is some unusual danger or difficulty arising from the place or means afforded for entering or alighting from a train. This is but an application 'of the principles laid down by this court in the case of Railway Company v. Rexroad, 59 Ark. 185. The rule is that the carrier is held to the highest degree of care in the management of its trains, for the reason that in that respect the passenger can do nothing to insure his own personal safety.\nIn the present case there were no unusual difficulties. Appellee was attended by two friends, who could reasonably be expected to assist her with her child, if any assistance was needed. There was a smooth cinder platform on a level with the rails and a stool upon which to mount to the first step. The train stopped at the usual place. Under the circumstances there was no duty devolving upon appellant to assist appellee in entering the train. 2 Hutchinson on Carriers, \u00a7 \u00a7 1112 and 1127; 6 Cyc. p. 611 and notes; Yarnell v. Kansas City, F. S. & M. R. Co., 18 L. R. A. 599.\nBut it is admitted that the brakeman attempted to assist her. Having undertaken a duty that it was not required to perform, the carrier was only bound to use ordinary care in discharging that duty. It is like the kind of care that is required in respect to station arrangements. In the case of St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Fairbairn, 48 Ark. 493, Cockrill, C. J., said: \u201cBut the company is bound to use ordinary care to keep its platforms in a safe condition for the benefit of those who have the legal right to go upon them.\u201d\nFor the error in giving the first instruction the case is reversed and remanded-.", "type": "majority", "author": "Hart, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "T. M. Mehaffy and J. B. Williams, for' appellant.", "Jos. B. Callaway, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Green.\nOpinion delivered January 13, 1908.\nCarrier \u2014 duty to assist passengers \u2014 degree oe care \u2014 It is error, under ordinary circumstances, to instruct the jury that a carrier, undertaking to assist a passenger in entering a car, is bound to exercise the highest degree of care; its duty being limited to the exercise of ordinary care in such case.\nAppeal from Clark Circuit Court \u00a1Jacob M. Carter, Judge;\nreversed.\nSTATEMENT BY THE COURT.\nThe plaintiff, Mattie E. Green, filed her complaint - in the Clark Circuit Court, alleging:\nThat the defendant, St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company, is a railroad corporation, operating a railroad, which passes through Witherspoon, in Hot Spring County, Arkansas; that plaintiff on the nth day of August, \u00cd906, undertook to board its south-bound passenger train for Arkadelphia, before it had pulled up to the station, by direction of an employee of the defendant, and that said employee was careless and negligent in assisting her to get upon said train, causing her to fall, wrenching her back, etc., causing her to be unable to use her left arm and to perform her household duties, and causing great pain and suffering; and prayed for damages in the sum of three thousand dollars, and for other relief.\nThe defendant denied each and every material allegation of the plaintiff\u2019s complaint, and set up that, if the plaintiff was injured at all, it was by reason of her own contributory negligence, and prayed to -be discharged, having answered.\nThis cause came on for hearing before a jury duly impanelled, on the nth of February, 1907, at the January term of the Clark Circuit Court, and the following testimony was introduced :\nMrs. Mattie E. Green, the plaintiff, being first duly sworn and examined, testified in substance as follows, to-wit:\nThat, she is the plaintiff; lives at Witherspoon, a station on the defendant company\u2019s line of railroad; is a married woman; Witherspoon is about five miles from Arkadelphia; that she was at th.e station for the purpose of getting on the train on August 11, 1906, to take passage to Arkadelphia, Arkansas, and was injured there; that there was a platform at the station, and when she started to board the train she did so under direction from a man in the uniform of a railroad man; the platform is pretty long; that there were two fellows getting