
    No. 10,654.
    Stella V. Burbank vs. Illinois Central Railroad Company.
    It is tlie duty oí a railroad company to furnish safe and easy ingress and egress-to and from their station houses and platforms to all persons who have business at said station houses. It is also its duty to keep said station houses and platforms in.a safe condition.
    But a person, who goes to the station house and on the platform, not for the purpose of any business, or to meet expected friends, or to see others depart, but as a mere spectator for his own pleasure and convenience, is there at his own risk and peril, and can not recover damages for personal injuries received in consequence of a defective platform. To entitle such a person to recover, he must show such gross and wanton negligence on the part of the company equivalent to intentional mischief.
    A PPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Monroe, J.
    
    
      B. B. Forman and Charles Forman for Plaintiff and Appellee:
    1. It is the duty of railroad companies to furnish safe and easy ingress and egress to and from their platforms and station houses, and. to keep such platforms and station houses in a safe condition for use. *
    2. They are liable not only to passengers, but to persons who come to their stations on business; or are implicitly invited to come and use the platforms by the custom of the people of the place and the absence of warnings or prohibition by the officers of the company, and who are injured by means of a defective and dangerous platform. Penniston vs. R. R. Co., 34 An. 780; Turner vs. R. R. Co., 87 An. 648; Moses vs. R. R. Co., 39 An. 649; Sullivan vs. R. R. Co., 39 An., 800; Eield on Corporations, Secs. 539 and 540, and cases cited.
    
      3. When the name of a witness in the commission has the same sound as that of the witness, and the first name is the ordinary abbreviation of the full name, the deposition may be read in evidence.
    4. When the attending physician is called as a witness in a personal injury case, he may testify as a medical expert, although the usual preliminary questions as to his qualifications as an expert are not put to him.
    
      Girault Farrar for Defendant and Appellant:
    1. A railway station, where both passenger and freight business is done, is not a general public loafing place, but is intended only for the company’s business, and for those persons having some business relation with the company, as passengers and their friends, shippers or receivers. Rorer on Railroads, V.ol. l,pp. 474, 475; Gillis vs. Penn. R. R. Co., 59 Penn. St. 129; Balt. & Ohio R. R. Co. vs. Schwinding, 8 Am. and Kng. R. R. Oases 544; Leary vs. C. O. & I. R. R. Co., 3 Am. and ling. R. R. Cases 498; PitLs., Port Wayne & C. R. R. vs. Bingham, 29 Ohio St. 364; X-Iarris vs. Stevens, 31 Vermont, 90; Wood vs. Leadbitter, 13 M. andW. 838; Pierce on Railroads, pp. 275 , 276;. Whittaker’s Smith on Negligence, pp. G1 62, 63.
    2. The company may require its passengers to restrict their wanderings to that portion of the premises assigned to them, and to observe the rules and regulations in that regard. This power is inherent.
    3. A fortiori, it may expel from its station grounds persons who go there out of mere idle curiosity, not on business connected with the company. Rorer on Railroads, Vol. 1, pp. 474, 475.
    4. The company owes to the general outside public, bare licensees congregating at its depot, little more than the negative duty of protection from wanton injury. Mere defect in the premises of the railway station will not give a right of action to a bare licensee who is injured thereby. Authorities cited above.
   The opinion of the eonrt was delivered by

McEnery, J.

This is a suit for damages for personal injuries received by the plaintiff by falling through a hole in the platform of the defendant company at the town of Tangipahoa on the night of the 23d of September, 1889.

There was judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of $1500. The defendant company appealed.

The plaintiff, in company with two other ladies, visited the defendant’s depot for the purpose of being present on the arrival of the 8 o’clock passenger train from New Orleans.

In her petition the plaintiff alleges that she was expecting friends on the train from New Orleans who might desire to stop at the boarding house of which she was the proprietress. On this important fact, in her testimony she is silent.

The ladies who accompanied her, state that the plaintiff was expecting no particular visitor, or visitors, that evening; but she went to the train for the purpose of seeing if there were any persons on the train who might wish to go to her boarding house. It is not stated in the petition, nor is there any evidence to show, that the plaintiff was in the habit of going to the train to solicit custom for her boarding house. It is evident from the statement of the witnesses, and from her silence as to the particular reason which induced her to go to the depot, that she had no defined purpose in going there. Her presence on the platform and at the depot was not for the purpose of transacting any business with the company, to receive freight, welcome friends, or for any purpose for which the depot had been built.

She was at the depot, it is true, by a general license from the company, in the absence of any express prohibition. It would not be practical for a railroad company, in the immensity of its business, to designate particular individuals who should be permitted to enter its depot. But there was no express or implied invitation to the plaintiff to go to the depot and on the platform.

Had the plaintiff been on the platform for the purpose of receiving expected guests, or on any other business connected with the-railroad, to transact which the platform was built, she' would be entitled to recover damages for the injuries received from a defective platform, the result of the company's negligence. 34 An. 780; 37 An. 648; 39 An. 649-800; Wharton, Negligence, paragraphs 652, 653, 654.

From the evidence in the record we think the fact is clearly established that the plaintiff was on the platform for pleasure only, and not with the intention of transacting any business with the company, or for the purpose of receiving friends expected on the train.'

Her presence on the platform was at her own risk and peril.

Railroad platforms are not made for the use of the public; and if persons not invited and having no business with the company are injured in consequence of a defect in the platform, they have no redress. Wharton, Negligence, paragraph 822.

There was no inducement offered by the defendant to plaintiff which was equivalent to an invitation to go upon the platform. Mere permission, because it is impossible to refuse it, is not an inducement or an invitation to enter on the premises of another. The person entering on the premises of another under such circumstances goes at his own risk, and enjoys the license subject to its attendant perils. The law does not impose the duty upon the owner to keep his premises in a condition of such repair as to suit the convenience of those who go there solely for their own pleasure, and who are not invited or induced to go upon them.

The defendant company, under the facts in this case, could only be made liable if the uncovered platform through which the plaintiff fell was in its nature a trap. Wharton, Negligence, paragraph 821.

There must have been on the part of the company such gross and wanton negligence that it was equivalent to intentional mischief. Snyder vs. Railroad Co., 42 An. 302.

The station house offered ample accommodations for passengers and visitors on business. There was a waiting room for passengers, with all requisite appliances for egress and ingress. There was a graveled walk along the track, and between it and the depot, for passengers and visitors in Waiting. From thjs walk an inclined plane reached up to the platform.

There were platforms on the several sides of the building. The south side platform was used exclusively for freight. The flooring on this had been taken up for repairs. There was a lamp at the north side of the building which threw a light along the west platform intended for the use of passengers. This light did not reach the south platform, which was at the south end of the building, and at right angle to the west platform.

The plaintiff was sitting on the edge of the west platform. She jumped to the gravel walk, and went to the end of the platform at the south side, ascended the inclined plane, and fell through an opening in the south platform. The change of position by the plaintiff, it is alleged, was to get a better view of the inside of the coaches as the train approached. But it seems this was a needless change of position if the plaintiff really intended to see people coming from the train.' The gravel walk was specially designed for the purpose of going to or coming from the train. The part of the system of platforms through which plaintiff fell was dark; and this fact alone ought to have warned her of her danger. The absence of a light was at least a notice that no one was expected on that part of the platform. Being a freight platform, it was not to be expected that it would be used as a promenade.

In repairing this part of the platform around the depot, on the south, side, and leaving it unprotected, we are of the opinion that the opening was not in the nature of a trap, and the defendant company was not guilty of that degree of gross negligence that was equivalent to intentional mischief.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from be annulled, avoided and reversed; and it is now ordered that the suit be dismissed at plaintiff’s costs.

Rehearing refused.  