Gilmore v. Philadelphia & Reading R. R.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Gilmore v. Philadelphia & Reading R. R., 154 Pa. 375 (Pa. 1893)
25 A. 774; 1893 Pa. LEXIS 897
Dean, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Sterrett, Williams

Gilmore v. Philadelphia & Reading R. R.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

We find no error in this record. The stairway leading from the bridge to defendant’s station where the accident occurred was at that time and for some days previously in the use and control of the defendant company and open for all persons going to and from its station. The deceased had used it in order to reach the station to buy his ticket. The defendant may, therefore, be said to have invited the public to make use *378of the bridge, and it was its duty to see that it was in a reasonably safe condition. We do not think the doctrine in regard to independent contractors applies to the facts of this case. While there was some conflict of testimony, the facts were for the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Negligence — Railroad Companies — ■Station-Stairways. In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s husband, it appeared that at the station where the accident occurred a highway passed over the railroad by a bridge, and that a stairway led from the station to the bridge. In making some alterations in the station, defendant’s contractor had removed the stairway, and replaced it by a narrower one. On account of the decreased width of the stairway, it was necessary to extend the hand rail on the bridge to fill the space left by the narrower stairway, but this had not been done when the accident occurred. On the afternoon of the day before, the contractor’s workmen had placed a board across the opening, but this board was removed by some unknown person. The deceased crossed the bridge in the evening and descended the stairway to buy a ticket for a train which he intended to take the next morning. He purchased his ticket, reascended the stairs, reached the top, where he stopped to speak to some friends, and not knowing that the old rail had been removed, fell through the opening, and died from his injuries. On the day of the accident, and for some days previously the stairway had been in the use and control of defendant, and open for all persons going to and from its station. Held, that it was proper to submit the case to the jury. Independent contractor. The doctrine in regard to independent contractors does not apply to the facts of this ease.