{
  "id": 8652327,
  "name": "PINEUS v. RAILROAD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pineus v. Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1906-03-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "450",
  "last_page": "451",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "140 N.C. 450"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "48 Vt., 101",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Vt.",
      "case_ids": [
        11267028
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/vt/48/0101-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 N. C., 592",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653699
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/117/0592-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 239,
    "char_count": 3670,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.474,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4738921351099632e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6597830607112616
    },
    "sha256": "19f3d8e6aa41da16e5f7b59f4ef44c5a1e41b73b0ca4ac8767045d59decd4b01",
    "simhash": "1:718c13f2f25d2e8a",
    "word_count": 612
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:16:12.663031+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "PINEUS v. RAILROAD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Brown, J.\nThe testimony most favorable to plaintiff tends to prove that he arrived at Sharpsburg on defendant\u2019s railroad, with his trunks, which were placed with checks on them in defendant\u2019s warehouse by direction of Dawes, defendant\u2019s agent, and they remained in custody of defendant while plaintiff was at Sharpsburg, which was from one train to tbe next southbound, train. The warehouse was on defendant\u2019s right-of-way and used by defendant for freight purposes. Defendant\u2019s agents testified that passengers\u2019 baggage was stored and handled in the warehouse on this platform. Plaintiff\u2019s baggage had been previously stored there and he had gotten on and off the train there. Shortly before arrival of next train defendant\u2019s agent sent his clerk with plaintiff to this warehouse for the purpose of reehecking the trunks to Elm City. After rechecking the trunks plaintiff started to take the approaching train. It was at night; there was no light on the platform and it was encumbered with cotton. Plaintiff stepped into a hole in the platform and was injured. Plaintiff had a mileage book good on defendant\u2019s road.\nIf these facts are true plaintiff was a passenger when injured. He had a right to seek his baggage and recheck it. It matters not whether Sharpsburg was a regular or a flag station, the defendant owed plaintiff the duty to provide a safe platform, especially as plaintiff entered on it at invitation of defendant\u2019s agent for a legitimate purpose. Daniel v. Railroad, 117 N. C., 592, The duty of a railroad company in respect to keeping safe station premises extends to all who rightfully come upon the premises in pursuance of the invitation which it holds out to the public, and embraces all who come there on legitimate business to be transacted with its agent. Wood on Railways, pp. 310, 1341, 1349; Beard v. Railroad, 48 Vt., 101; 6 Cyc., 605, 610. There was, in our opinion, sufficient evidence of negligence to be submitted to the jury under appropriate issues.\nIt-is contended that there is a variance between the allegations of the complaint and the proof. We do not think the alleged variance sufficient to justify a nonsuit. It may be well to amend the complaint, although we do not decide that it is insufficient as it is. The nonsuit is set aside.\nNew Trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Brown, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thorne, Gilliam & Gilliam for the plaintiff.",
      "John L. Bridgers for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PINEUS v. RAILROAD.\n(Filed March 6, 1906).\nRailroads \u2014 Flag Stations \u2014 Station Premises \u2014 Passengers\u2014 Negligence.\n1. Where plaintiff arrived at a flag station on defendant\u2019s railroad, with his trunks, which were placed with checks on them in defendant\u2019s warehouse located on its right of way, and used for storing baggage and before the arrival of the next train, plaintiff went with defendant\u2019s clerk to this warehouse to recheck the trunks and after reehecking them started to take the approaching train, having a mileage book, and stepped in a hole in the platform adjoining the warehouse, and was injured, held, plaintiff was a passenger when injured and there was sufficient evidence of negligence to be submitted to the jury.\n2. The duty of a railroad company in respect to keeping safe station premises extends to all who rightfully come upon the premises on legitimate business to be transacted with its agent, and this duty extends to flag as well as regular stations.\nActioN by II. Pineus against Atlantic Coast Line' Railroad Co., beard by Judge Jas. L. W\u00e9bb and a jury, at tbe November Term, 1905, of the Superior Court of Edgecombe.\nThis was an action to recover damages for injuries sustained on the platform of defendant\u2019s warehouse. Erom a judgment of nonsuit, the plaintiff appealed.\nThorne, Gilliam & Gilliam for the plaintiff.\nJohn L. Bridgers for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0450-01",
  "first_page_order": 486,
  "last_page_order": 487
}