
    (53 South. 678.)
    No. 18,040.
    ABNEY v. LOUISIANA & N. W. R. CO.
    (Nov. 14, 1910.
    Rehearing Denied Dec. 12, 1910.)
    
      (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
    On Motion to Dismiss.
    1. Corporations (§ 507*) — Service of Citation.
    Act No. 2G1 of 1908 provides that a corporation may be cited by leaving the citation at its office, and a corporation cannot avoid the effect of this act by providing in its charter that its secretary shall be the proper person on whom a citation shall be served.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 1971-2000; Dec. Dig. § 507.*]
    On the Merits.
    2. Carriers (§ 286*) — Injury to Passengers —Liability.
    A railroad company assumes the duty to reasonably care for the safety of its passengers and to furnish safe egress from its station, and where it fails, on a dark night, to furnish sufficient light on its station platform, and if an accident happens to a passenger, leaving the station, because of this insufficient light, the railroad company is responsible for such injury.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. §§ 1142-1152; Dec. Dig. § 286.*]
    Appeal from Third Judicial District Court, Parish of Claiborne; B. P. Edwards, Judge.
    Action by Henrietta O. Abney against the Louisiana & Northwest Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    John A. Richardson, for appellant. W. U. Richardson and J. E. Moore, for appellee.
   BREAUX, C. Jl

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court, without a jury, rendered in favor of plaintiff, condemning defendants to pay to plaintiff the sum, of $2,500 with 5 per cent, interest per annum from the 12th day of November, 1909, the date of the judgment.

Plaintiff brought suit for $4,000.

She answered the appeal and asked for an increase of the judgment to the amount she claims.

Plaintiff was returning from Shreveport with her son, an invalid, upon whom a surgical operation had been performed a short time previous. The son was assisted by a physician and his brother at the town of Athens, La., to get from the railroad to the buggy near by. Plaintiff was following behind these persons, when she fell.

The injuries of which she complains are a broken collar bone — left—loosening it from the shoulder blade, a broken shoulder blade, a fractured arm, and bruises, and severe shock. As a result of the injuries, she alleged that she was confined to her bed many weeks, suffered great pain, and still suffers, and that her left arm and shoulder are permanently injured and rendered of little use.

The cause of the accident is that on a dark night the depot gallery at Athens, La., was not lighted; that she could not see her. way over the gallery and platform to the steps, down which it was necessary for her to walk; that the platform extension was not protected by rails.

In the darkness, she could not see how near the edge of the platform she was as she approached the steps. She stepped or fell off the platform and fell to the ground a distance of about three feet. She fell on her left side on the west of the platform— the side away from the railroad track.

The defendant filed an exception alleging want of citation and service.

The exception was overruled.

Defendant filed a general denial, and alleged that if plaintiff received injury it was the result of her negligence.

Plaintiff is about 53 years of age, is the mother of a family, and was a passenger on defendant’s passenger train from Gibbsland on the Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railroad to her home in Athens, La.

The train was late and arrived at Athens between 8 and 9 o’clock at night — a night in December, 1909.

As to whether it was a dark night, the plaintiff testifies that it was dark, so does the physician, Dr. Simpson, who was present and dressed her wounds. He also corroborates plaintiff in the statement that there was no light about the platform or gallery; that there was a light in the office room of the depot; that it did not extend to the platform off of which plaintiff fell.

That the light from the office had, if any, the effect to blind the pedestrian who walked from the lines of light into the darkness.

Another witness, the former mayor of Athens, testified that the platform was some 6 ■ or 7 feet wide, and the extension from where it left the main depot gallery to the steps was about 40 feet; that there was no stationary light on or near the platform, casting light thereon. While there were lamps inside the depot at night, there were none throwing light on or near the platform.

Exception to Citation.

Defendant’s plea of want of citation was that there was an absolute failure to serve the citation.

Plaintiff named the secretary of the company as the officer designated by the charter of the company on whom to make service.

The defendant seeks to hold plaintiff to the letter of this allegation, and, as it was not served on the secretary, he urged that there, was no legal service.

The sheriff in his return states, in substance, that he repaired to the office of the defendant company in the town of Ilomor, La., the domicile of the corporation, and inquired for the secretary of the corporation; ,as he intended to make service upon him. He was informed that the secretary was absent from the office, and, as there were no other officers present, he served the papers by handing them to a person (naming him) working in the defendant’s office and having the required age.

The law’s requirement is that citation with accompanying papers shall be served by the sheriff upon the corporation by leaving the citation and papers at the office of the corporation cited. Act No. 261 of 1908, p. 381.

This provision of the law was complied with by leaving the papers at the office of defendant with a person authorized to receive them for the company.

The exception was properly overruled.

On the Merits.

The weight of the evidence sustains the proposition that the extension of the platform where plaintiff fell was not sufficiently lighted; that the night was dark; that there was light at the depot; that it did not throw light in the direction of the fall of plaintiff.

There were no rails or guards around the platform and on the sides of the steps. True, that cannot be required. It is not usual to place rails around platforms and steps. None the less, the platform should be constructed so that there is something to warn the pedestrian not to step too freely on it on a dark night.

The defendant charges that the negligence, carelessness, or want of caution on the part of plaintiff were the proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall.

The testimony shows that plaintiff, following her wounded son beforementioned, stepped at the end of the platform at or near the steps; they passed on to the buggy.

She was standing near the edge of the platform — nearer than she had any idea of —and, while thus standing, she moved a little and fell.

Whether she moved to get out of the way of some one passing, as is stated in argument, or without any special motive save to change positions, can make but little difference. If she did not know of the edge proximity, or could not see because of the want of light, these facts are complete answers to the charge of negligence.

This brings us to the second question: Was the night sufficiently dark to require a light?

The weight of the testimony is that it was sufficiently dark to require a light.

Reputable witnesses — some of them members of the medical profession — were positive in their statements as witnesses that the night was dark and that there were no lights.

There was introduced in evidence the fly sheet of an almanac to prove that on the night in question (the 10th day of December, 1908) the moon rose at 7:25 p. m.

1-Iow bright it was, how much of its light reached the little town of Athens at that time and place, is not stated.

We can only say that it does not always follow that there will be moonlight on the earth’s surface everywhere about an hour after the moon is up.

There may have been obstruction to the moon’s light at that particular place.

The defendant’s contention is that a hill near by in the westerly direction from the depot obstructed the light- — whatever light the moon was casting.

There may have been other causes. The almanac fly sheet, under the circumstances, is not controlling, as to whether there was bright moonlight at Athens at the particular time and place.

A railroad corporation assumes the responsibility to reasonably care for the safety of its passengers.

One of its duties is to furnish safe egress from trains and platforms at night and to furnish sufficient lights to enable the passengers to guide their steps.

After carefully reading the testimony, we arrived at the conclusion that the want of light was the proximate cause of the injury.

The defendant urged that others passed near the place of the fall, including among them the sick son of the plaintiff and those attending him, and that they met with no accident; that they did not call for light in leaving the train and walking over the platform.

Argument of learned counsel for defendant on this point is persuasive, not, however, to a degree that is conclusive and convincing, for one or more persons may pass a dark place without asking for light, while another following behind or on the side may not be equally as favored.

We have considered this and other points without finding it possible to arrive at the conclusion that the judgment is erroneous.

The district judge heard the witnesses and observed them.

Quantum of Damages.

In this respect also the judge was careful and conservative. The amount allowed conforms with our opinion.

We therefore will not disturb the judgment.

Eor reasons stated, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.  