passing through the door of a railway car, places his hand in such a position that it is injured by the closing of the door by a servant of the company, the servant having no reason to suspect that the passenger has placed his hand in a place of danger, the railway company will not be liable.2 And the same would be true if the door were closed by the ordinary movement of the train in starting or stopping,3 or by the agency of some third person. Since the opening and closing of doors. and windows in the carrier's vehicles is not entirely within the control of the carrier's servants, doors and windows frequently being opened and closed by the passengers themselves, the fact that a cinder which causes injury to a passenger is blown through an open door or window will not be sufficient to charge the carrier with negligence in failing to keep the door or window closed.5 2. Benson v. The Railway, (1903) 88 Law T. 268; Murphy v. The Railroad, 89 Ga. 832, 15 S. E. Rep. 774. Where the passenger is neither in the act of alighting from nor entering the train of a railway company, the fact that he suffers an injury to his finger by the shutting of the carriage door by a servant of the company will not be sufficient evidence of negligence to charge the railway company with liability. Drury v. The Railway, (1901) 2 K. B. 322, 70 L. J. K. B. 830, 84 Law T. 658. See also, Cormier v. The Railroad (Canada), 36 N. B. 10. 3. Skinner v. The Railroad, 128 N. Car. 435, 39 S. E. Rep. 65; Graf v. Railroad Co., N. J. L. 62 Atl. Rep. 333. Where the door was left open by reason of the closeness of the air in the car, and it was later closed by a jerk of the train upon the fingers of a passenger who was standing on the platform of the Rep. 662. 4. Graeff v. Railroad Co., 161 Penn. St. 230, 28 Atl. Rep. 1107, 41 Am. St. Rep. 885, 23 L. R. A. 606. 5. Railway Co. v. Orton, 67 Kan. 848, 73 Pac. Rep. 63. Although a window in a car is raised and left unsupported by some person other than the railway company's servants, the railway company will nevertheless be liable for an injury to a passenger caused by the window falling on his fingers, it appearing that by an inspection at the starting point the unsafe condition of the window would have been discovered. International, etc., Ry. Co. v. Phil In the absence of a custom to the contrary, a railway com. pany is under no duty to permit entrance to its cars by way of the doors in its express or baggage cars, and no negligence can be attributed to it because it has not provided for an entrance by such means.6 Although a railway company owes no duty to the public to provide vestibuled trains, yet if it undertakes to do so, pas sengers will have the right to assume that the vestibules provided are convenient and safe, and that they will be prudently and carefully managed. If, therefore, a railway company negligently permits the appliances to get out of repair, or if a vestibule door is needlessly left open while the train is in motion, and a passenger is thereby injured, the railway company will be liable. The fact, however, that an ordinary car, intended only for local traffic, is run in a vestibuled train is not in itself sufficient to show a want of care on the part of the railway company where passengers, having occasion to use the car, can plainly see that it is not provided with vestibules.8 3. Duty as to stational facilities. Sec. 928. (§ 516.) Duty of railway carriers in respect to platforms, approaches and station accommodations. It is the duty of railway companies as carriers of passengers to provide platforms, waiting-rooms and other reasonable accommodations for such passengers, at the stations upon such road at lips, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 336, 69 S. Bronson v. Oakes, 76 Fed. 734, 22 W. Rep. 107. 6. Railroad Co. v. O'Keefe, 168 Ill. 115, 48 N. E. Rep. 294, 61 Am. St. Rep. 68, 39 L. R. A. 148; s. c. 154 Ill. 508, 39 N. E. Rep. 606; Railway Co. v. Allender, 59 Ill. App. 620; s. c. 47 Ill. App. 484. 7. Crandall v. Railway Co., Minn. 105 N. W. Rep. 185; Wagoner v. Railroad Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 94 S. W. Rep. 293; C. C. A. 520; Robinson v. U. S. 8. Sanson v. The Railway, 111 Fed. 887, 50 C. C. A. 53. It is not negligence for those in which they are in the habit of taking on and putting off passengers. Their public profession as such carriers is an invitation to the public to enter and to alight from their cars at their stations, and it has been held that they must not only provide safe platforms and approaches thereto, but that they are bound to make safe, for all persons who may come to such stations in order to become their passengers, or who may be put off there by them, all portions of their station grounds reasonably near to such platforms, and to which such persons may be likely to go; and for not having provided such stational accommodations and safeguards, railway companies have frequently been held liable for injuries to such persons. Where, for instance, one intending to become a passenger found such accommodations at a station so disagreeable that she undertook to enter the cars before they were drawn up to the platform from which passengers generally entered them, and by reason of her so doing was injured, it was held that the company was liable, notwithstanding her imprudence; Dillon, C. J., who gave the opinion for the court, saying that it is the duty of railway passenger carriers to provide comfortable rooms for the accommodation of passengers while waiting at the stations, and to enforce such regulations in regard to smoking therein as to enable persons to occupy them in reasonable comfort.10 charge of a vestibuled train to 84 Pac. Rep. 1026. 9. Railway Co. v. Barnett, 65 Ark. 255, 45 S. W. Rep. 550, citing Hutch, on Carr.; Railroad Co. v. Taylor, 25 Ind. App. 679, 58 N. E. Rep. 852; Gunderman v. Railway Co., 58 Mo. App. 370, citing Hutch. on Carr.; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Walker, 217 Ill. 605, 75 N. One dealing with a ticket broker, knowing him to be such, who is selling passenger tickets upon his own account, cannot charge the railroad company with negligence for not providing safe premises at the place where he applies to purchase a ticket. Herrman v. Railway Co., 27 Wash. 472, 68 Pac. Rep. 82, 57 L. R. A. 390. 10. McDonald v. The Railroad, 25 Iowa, 124. Sec. 929. Same subject-Like accommodations not required at all stations.-The character of the accommodations required varies, of course, with the amount of business done at a particular point, for accommodations of the same character cannot be expected in cities and at way stations;11 and this rule has been recognized even in jurisdictions where statutes exist upon the subject.12 In the case of flag stations and mere road crossings at which trains stop only on signal and for the convenience of persons wishing to take the train, railway companies may be relieved altogether of the obligation to furnish depots or platforms.13 But if railway companies attract unusually large crowds to any one point by means of low rate excursions, they should provide stational facilities and accommodations at that point commensurate with the number of persons thus invited to be present.14 11. Falls v. Railroad Co., 97 Cal. 114, 31 Pac. Rep. 901; Brown v. Railway Co., 119 Ga. 88, 46 S. E. Rep. 71. Where the passenger knows the character of a flag station and that the station-house was not kept open there during the night time, and he nevertheless goes to such station in the night time to await for a train and is made sick through exposure to the weather, he cannot recover. Sandifer's Adm'r. C. Railroad Co., Ky., 89 S. W. Rep. 528. 12. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 103 Ky. 605, 45 S. W. Rep. 880, 46 S. W. Rep. 697; State v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 76 Minn. 469, 79 N. W. Rep. 510. 13. Railway Co. v. Stacey, 68 Miss. 463, 9 So. Rep. 349; Brown r. Railway Co., 119 Ga. 88, 46 S. E. Rep. 71. 14. "If railroads make prodigious efforts, by offering low rates, and by extended and cap tivating advertisements, to secure a greater number of passengers to travel over their lines than they can safely and reasonably care for at their terminal points, and accidents follow, they must answer for the risks thus assumed. The traveling public may be justly subject to criticism for going in such vast numbers, and voluntarily as suming the extra hazards thereby incurred, but the railroad companies are nevertheless bound to take precautions commensurate to the risks they have imposed on the unprecedented crowds thus invited. What would constitute ordinary care in precautions taken for a crowd of 5,000 people might not be ordinary care in case the crowd numbered 10,000. The trav eler, as one of 10,000 passengers, is entitled to the same degree of care that is due him as one of 5,000. If the carrier which has solicited the 10,000 passengers to travel over its road cannot give Sec. 930. Same subject-Where railroad line or stational facilities are still in process of construction.-The gist of an action against a railroad company for injuries resulting from improper stational facilities is the express or implied invitation of the company to use those facilities as such and the passenger's reliance upon the consequent implied assurance of the company that those facilities are in good condition. A railroad company, therefore, is not liable for injuries to an intending passenger occasioned by falling down the unfinished steps of an unfinished station, there being nothing about the station to indicate that it was yet in use, and the injured person being able to see that it was still in process of being built.15 So where a person takes passage upon a construction train to go over an unfinished railroad, and is aware of its incomplete condition and that the track has but recently been laid to his destination, and that the company has not had sufficient time to build a depot or stational facilities at that point, the company owes him no duty to have a suitable depot and platform at his destination, and the absence of such accommodations will not be regarded as negligence.16 Sec. 931. Same subject-Equipment and heating of waiting rooms-Retiring places.-Railway stations must be provided with reasonable appointments for the safety and essential comfort of passengers, or those intending to become passengers, while they are waiting for trains. If the weather is such as to require a fire in the waiting room to make it comfortable, to him this proper measure of care, and an injury thereby follows, it is responsible. It cannot invite and undertake to transport more passengers than its capacity justifies, and then excuse itself by claiming an unprecedented crowd, and that ordinary care as to the passengers in its depot was used." In the case in which this rule was announced, a railroad company by means of advertisements and reduced rates, collected an unusual crowd at its station. Instead of |