The plaintiff, a hackman, carrying passengers to the defendants’ depot, was injured in stepping from his carriagе into a cavity in the platform built and occupied by thеm. The jury have found that the plaintiff was without fault, and that the injury hе sustained was occasioned solely by the neglect and want of ordinary care of the defendants in having thеir platform in an unsafe and dangerous condition.
The dеfendant corporation is bound to make the aрproaches over their own premises to their depot safe and convenient for passengers. Thеy are bound to keep their platforms and landing-places safe and convenient for all who make use of their cars as a means of conveyance. Knight v. P. S. & P. R. R. Co., 56 Maine, 505. They would be liable in damages for any injury ocсasioned by their neglect to any passenger who, on his part, was without fault. This is conceded by the able counsel for the defendants.
But the railroad corporation is bound not merely to keep these platforms sаfe for their passengers, but for all who have rightful
The hackman, conveying pаssengers to a railroad depot for transportation, and aiding them to alight upon the platform of the сorporation, is as rightfully upon the same as the passengers alighting. It would be absurd to protect the one from the consequences of corporate negligence and not the other. The hackman is there in thе course of his business ; but it is a business important to and for the convenience and profit of the defendants. The general principle is well settled, that a person injurеd, without neglect on his part, by a defect or obstruction in a way or passage over which he has been induced to pass, for a lawful purpose, by an invitation еxpress or implied, can' recover damages fоr the injury sustained against the individual so inviting and being in fault for the defеct. Barrell v. Black, 56 Maine, 498; Carleton v. Franconia Iron & Steel Company,
It is objected that the defendants built the platform within the limits of the public highway. But it is no answer to the plaintiff, when seеking compensation for the consequences оf their neglect, that they have trespassed upon thе rights of the public. They have built the platform and used it. Them passengers and those having rightful occasion to be upon it are there by their invitation, and they are respоnsible for its condition.
It may be that the city of Portland might be liаble for a nuisance within the limits of their public highways, ereсted and maintained by the defendant corporatiоn. But if so, the city would have the right of reclamation against those creating the nuisance. Portland v. Biohardson, 54 Maine, 46. Much more, then, could the party injured maintain his action directly against the corporation causing the injury. Exceptions overruled.