
    Blue v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.
    In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant, the plaintiff testified: “ I purchased a ticket for W.; as the train got right opposite the station, I rose out of my seat and walked to the door, expecting the train to stop at the depot. I got out on the platform and stepped down on the step. I turned to retrace my steps, when a sudden jerk of the car broke my hold. I had a dinner-basket on my wrist. I had a hold on one of the braces of the platform and the sudden jerk wrenched my hold. I went down, struck on my hand, and dislocated my shoulder. They ran up above the platform, which is 250 feet. The station is a small building near the centre of the platform. They ran by 25 to 30 yards. The rear car stood above the platform.” The defendant moved for a non-suit on the ground of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The court entered a compulsory non-suit. Held, not to be error.
    Jan. 15, 1889.
    Error, No. 414, Jan. T. 1888, to C. P. No. 3, Pbila. Co., to review a judgment of compulsory non-suit, in an action on the case by John Blue against the Pennsylvania R. R. Co., for personal injuries, at March T. 1886, No. 209.
    At the trial, the plaintiff testified as follows:
    “ 1 purchased a ticket to Wissinoming. As the train got right opposite the station I rose out of my seat and walked to the door, expecting the train to stop at the depot. I got out on the platform, and stepped down on the step, waiting for the train to stop. A brakeman on the train stood on the next platform, and he spoke to me, but what his words were I couldn’t just tell, for the noise of the car, and I am a little hard of hearing. I looked at him, and turned to retrace my steps, when a sudden jerk of the car — I suppose from the air-brake — broke my hold. I had a dinner-basket on my wrist, and I had a hold of one of the braces from the platform, from the car, and the sudden jerk wrenched my hold. I went down, and struck on my hand Here (indicating), and dislocated my shoulder. They ran up above the platform, which is two hundred and fifty feet, I think it is called, or may be a little more. I stepped it off. It is about two hundred and fifty feet. Q. Where is the station, in the centre, or at what part of the platform ? A. I suppose to the best of my knowledge it is a little small building; it is near the centre of the platform. They ran by, I should judge, from twenty-five to thirty yards ; the rear car stood above the platform. Q. The rear car was above the platform? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was the rate of speed at the time? A. I suppose it was a rate of six or eight miles an hour. Q. Had they slackened their speed any? A. I did not take any notice of it; not at all. . . .”
    The court entered a compulsory non-suit.
    
      The assignments of error specified the action of the court in entering a compulsory non-suit; and, 2, in not letting the case go to the jury, on the question of contributory negligence, under the evidence of the plaintiff in error, quoting the evidence in chief.
    
      H. W. Gimber, for plaintiff in error.
    The proximate cause of the accident was the defendant’s neglect. The mere fact of the plaintiff being upon the platform when he had right to expect the train would gradually decrease its momentum until it fully stopped, did not render him guilty of contributory negligence. If the defendant could not by ordinary care avoid the plaintiff’s negligence, the plaintiff’s negligence is the proximate cause of the injury. Smith Neg. *227-152.
    It cannot be considered contributory negligence' if the plaintiff has merely not anticipated the defendant’s negligence, for the plaintiff has a right to presume that the defendant is going to act with ordinary care until he has given some notice to the contrary, when it becomes his duty to take ordinary means to avoid it.
    There is probably no negligence in the mei’e fact of a train not pulling up at a platform, provided due care is taken no injury arises from it; but if, from want of such care, or if, by some action of the defendant, connected with stopping, the plaintiff is led into danger, the defendant is liable for negligence. Smith Neg., *191; Pa. R. R. v. Peters, 116 Pa. 217; Pa. R. R. v. Kilgore, 32 Pa. 294.
    The carrier is liable for injuries received by a passenger, who, in alarm, caused by the carrier’s negligence, jumps from the carriage. This has been extended to cases where the train negligently passes a station where a passenger is due, and where, in the anxiety of the moment, he jumps from the car in an unsuitable place. Filer v. N. Y. C. R. R., 49 N. Y. 51.
    Where one is placed in a position of obvious peril by a carrier, the carrier is liable, although the act of the former in attempting to escape may be the immediate cause of the injury. Wh. Neg. 375.
    
      Gavin, W. Hurt and David W. Sellers, not heard, for defendant in error.
    No negligence on the part of the railroad was shown. It appeared affirmatively that the conduct of the plaintiff alone was the cause of the accident.
    The duty to transport safely carries with it the reciprocal duty of the passenger to do what prudent people do. This principle has been ■ fully enunciated in the case of C. & A. R. R. v. Hoosey, 99 Pa. 492. There a passenger, who could not find a seat inside, stood on the platform, although there was standing room inside. He was held guilty of contributory negligence.
    In all of the cases in which recovery has been allowed to persons injured by alighting from moving trains, there has always been evidence that the person injured has, by the positive acts of the employés in some way been involved in the attempt to alight with proper care under the circumstances; and, therefore, negligence could not be imputed to them.
    The nearest case to ours is that of Hickey v. Boston & Lowell R. R., 14 Allen, 429. There the injured person had left his seat in the smoker and gone to the front platform of the car behind. The engine and smoker were detached, and the car upon which he was standing was permitted to continue moving slowly into the depot. "While standing on the platform a collision occurred, injuring him, from the effects of which he died. A nonsuit was entered. The opinion, which we quote, applies to this ease. The reasoning in Langdon v. R. R., 92 Pa. 21, is to the same effect.
    Had the plaintiff been carried beyond the station, his course was an action upon the contract to carry. He had no right, by his act, to inflict injury upon himself and then charge the company with negligence.' Pa. R. R. v. Aspell, 23 Pa. 147.
    Jan. 15, 1889.
   Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.  