Williams v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co. VIOLA L. WILLIAMS v. KANSAS CITY TERMINAL. RAILWAY COMPANY and CHICAGO, BURLINGTON and QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellants. 2. In Banc, May 24, 1921. 1. TRANSFER FROM COURT OF APPEALS: Jurisdiction of Supreme Court. When a case is transferred to the Supreme Court by a Court of Appeals on the ground, within the time and in the manner specified by the Constitution, the Supreme Court acquires jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause, just as if it had come direct to it by appeal from the trial court. Defective Abstract of Record in Court of Appeals: New Abstract in Supreme Court. Where the Court of Appeals (one judge dissenting) held appellant's abstract of record failed to show that the bill of exceptions was properly authenticated and therefore affirmed the judgment and certified the cause to the Supreme Court on the ground of conflict of opinion, the appellants had the right to file in the Supreme Court, in due time, an abstract of record which eliminated the question considered by the Court of Appeals. 3. NEGLIGENCE: Passenger Carrier: Degree of Care as to Station Premises: Instruction. In a suit by a passenger against two railroad companies for damages for personal injuries received by the passenger by falling on wet and slippery steps leading from the waiting room in the Union Station at Kansas City to the platform on the train level where passengers boarded the train, an instruction is erroneous which tells the jury that the defendants owed plaintiff "the highest practicable degree of care of a very prudent person engaged in like business to prevent injury to her while upon their premises," inasmuch as defendants owed plaintiff no higher duty than that of exercising ordinary care to maintain the steps in a reasonably safe condition. 4. : Steps with Standard Treads: Demurrer to Evidence. Where defendant railroad companies had equipped the steps leading from the station waiting room to the platforms on the train level, where passengers boarded the train, with standard safety treads, consisting of corrugated steel and lead plates covering the entire surface of the steps, the ridges of the plates extending lengthwise paralleling the steps and consisting of steel Williams v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co. channels filled with lead, the lead coming up to or a little above the sides of the channels, they had done all that the exercise of ordinary care required to make the steps reasonably safe from the danger of slipping upon them, there being no evidence that the slipperiness complained of in the petition arose from the material of which the steps were constructed, or from the manner of their construction or from their having become worn or out of repair, but tending rather to show that it was due to water from the wet feet, clothing and umbrellas of passengers who preceded plaintiff down the steps to the train. And under such circumstances plaintiff was not entitled to recover and the trial court erred in not sustaining a demurrer to the evidence. [JAMES T. BLAIR, J., dissenting.] Transferred from Kansas City Court of Appeals. REVERSED. Warner, Dean, Langworthy, Thomson & Williams, S. W. Sawyer and John H. Lathrop for appellants. (1) Whether or not the abstract of the bill of exceptions filed in the Court of Appeals was sufficient, is no longer a question in the case because a new abstract has been filed in this court eliminating all possible deficiencies. (a) The majority opinion of the Court of Appeals deemed the abstract of the bill of exceptions insufficient because the judge's signature was not printed at the end of the bill of exceptions. As the case was certified here, it comes as if on appeal direct from the Circuit Court. Hayes v. Sheffield Ice Co., 221 S. W. 705; Art. 6, sec. 6, Const.; Keller v. Summers, 262 Mo. 331; Epstein v. Railroad, 250 Mo. 7. (2) The plaintiff failed to make out a case and the judgment should be reversed. (a) The defendants owed the plaintiff only the duty of ordinary care in respect to the condition of the station premises. Gunderman v. Ry. Co., 58 Mo. App. 370; Fullerton v. Fordyce, 121 Mo. 1; Robertson v. Wabash Railroad, 152 Mo. 382; Chase v. Railroad, 134 Mo. App. 655; Joyce v. Railway, 219 Mo. 344; Davis v. Railroad Co., 127 N. E. 66. (b) It was incumbent upon plaintiff to Williams v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co. show not only that a condition existed which might reasonably be expected to cause an injury but that such condition was actually known to the defendants and they had had an opportunity to correct it, or had existed for such a length of time that the defendants could have known of it by the exercise of ordinary care and corrected it or had existed for such a length of time that the defendants were presumed to know it and that they had failed to correct it within a reasonable time. Abbott v. Mining Co., 112 Mo. App. 550; Clonts v. Gas light Co., 144 Mo. App. 582; Kelley v. Ry. Co., 105 Mo. App. 365; Schnatterer v. Bamberger, 79 Atl. 324; Toland v. Furniture Co., 56 N. E. 608; Reeves v. Fourteenth Street Store, 96 N. Y. 488; Norton v. Hudner, 100 N. E. 546; Dudley v. Abraham, 107 N. Y. S. 97; Goddard v. Ry. Co., 60 N. E. 486; DeVelin v. Swanson, 72 Atl. 388; Davis v. Railroad Co., 127 N. E. 66. (3) There was plain error in the instructions given by the court on behalf of the plaintiff and refusing instructions asked by the defendants so that the case must be at least reversed and remanded. See all authorities cited under point 1. Cluett v. Power Co., 220 S. W. 865; Peck v. Amusement Co., 195 S. W. 1033. John T. Mathis and McVey & Freet for respondent. (1) The plaintiff made a case entitling her to the verdict of the jury, as the defendants were negligent in maintaining the steps leading to the train in a muddy, wet condition, which caused plaintiff to fall, when they knew or by the exercise of care could have known of the condition in time to have remedied it prior to plaintiff's injury, and regardless of the knowledge of defendants, plaintiff is entitled to recover because she was a passenger, and the defendants owed her the duty to have the steps in a safe condition. Albin v. Ry. Co., 103 Mo. App. 316; Bledsoe v. West, 186 Mo. App. 465; Rodick v. Ry. Co., 109 Me. 530, 85 Atl. 42. (2) The plaintiff Williams v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co. was a passenger under the care and control of defendants, and as such was entitled to the highest practicable degree of care from defendants, and the court was right in so instructing the jury. Stauffer v. Railroad, 243 Mo. 327; Austin v. Railroad, 149 Mo. App. 397; Albin v. Railroad, 103 Mo. App. 308; Young v. Ry. Co., 93 Mo. App. 273; McClanahan v. Railroad, 147 Mo. App. 404; Dieckman v. Ry. Co., 145 Iowa, 250, 121 N. W. 676; Ry. Co. v. Harrison, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 17, 120 S. W. 254. RAGLAND, C.-Plaintiff sues to recover for injuries received from a fall on a stairway leading from the waiting room, in the Union Station at Kansas City, down to a platform from which passengers enter trains. Plaintiff was at the time a passenger and was on her way to a train. Her action is based on the alleged negligence of defendants in permitting the Statement. stairway at the time to be in an unsafe and dangerous condition. The petition charges the negligence in the following language: "By reason of the negligence and carelessness of said defendants, their agents and servants, in maintaining said steps and stairway in a slippery, dangerous and defective condition, plaintiff slipped on said steps and stairway and fell against the banister and steps of said stairway, thereby injuring said plaintiff as more particularly set out herein; that said defendants by the exercise of ordinary care knew or could have known of the dangerous and slippery condition of said steps." One of the defendants answered with a general denial and a plea of contributory negligence; the other, with a general denial only. From express and implied admissions, the following facts appeared on the trial: The Union Station at Kansas City is so constructed that there are no entrances from the street on the track level. The only way for passengers to get to the trains is to come into Williams v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co. the station from the street, pass through a large lobby, thence into the main waiting room and from thence down one of a number of stairways leading to the platforms · on the train level. From the street entrance into the station to the place where plaintiff fell is from 300 to 400 feet. The stairways are not in continuous use; each serves as a means of ingress and egress only for passengers going to and coming from certain trains; hence, as to any one of them, there may be long intervals of non-use. They are so enclosed as not to be exposed to the weather; and the train platforms are also under roof. The stairway on which plaintiff fell was constructed of concrete and iron. There were two landings; the flight from the second one to the bottom was fourteen steps. The width of the stairway was not shown, nor were the dimensions of the steps. It appears, however, that there was a banister on each side and the steps were equipped with a safety tread. The tread was a corrugated steel and lead plate which covered the entire surface of the step. The ridges, which extended lengthwise the plate paralleling the steps, consisted of steel channels filled with lead, the lead coming up to or a little above the sides of the channels. The lead, it was said, had an adhesive quality which is not affected by the lead becoming wet. According to plaintiff's testimony: She went to the Union Station in the afternoon of December 31, 1916, to take a Burlington train for Palmyra, Missouri, due to leave at 6:20 p. m. She procured a ticket, went to the waiting room, sat down and waited for the gate to be opened. There was a crowd at the gate through which she would have to pass to go to her train. After about five minutes the gate was opened and the crowd began go through. When she got to the gate an usher took her suit case and told her to follow him. She was carrying a baby, an umbrella and a handbag. As she was starting down the last flight of steps her right foot slipped. Just as she put her weight on her right foot, |