LOCATION DISTANCE APART SPARSELY SETTLED LOCALITY.
Applications for an order directing the respondent to erect and main-
tain stations at Kitsumkalum and Stewart's Landing. The respondent
proposed to locate stations at Littleton and Copper River, and if these
applications were granted there would be four stations within less than
eleven miles in a sparsely settled locality. The location of a station at
Kitsumkalum would involve a yard on a grade with a bridge over a river
at one end and a highway crossing in the neck of the yard, while a station
at Stewart's Landing would be about three miles northerly from Littleton
and about two miles southerly from Copper River: Held, that the ap-
plication must be refused, and the locations proposed by the respondent
Kby v. Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co., 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 22.
[Followed in Forward Townsite v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 1-4 Can. Ry. Cas.
REGULAR AND FLAG STATIONS FKF.IOHT AGENT ACCOMMODATION.
After stations with regular equipment had been maintained at French
and Rutter, six miles apart, from 1908 to 1911, Rutter was made a flag
station, part of the business was transferred to French, the agent re-
moved and a night operator left in his place. Upon complaint by resi-
dents (representing that a population of 2,500 was dependent upon the
station), the Board, upon the report of its inspector, ordered the railway
company (1) to keep a caretaker to look after freight, express and mail
matter at the station from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily, except Sunday. (2)
To see that its conductors sold tickets to people boarding trains at Rut-
ter, and their baggage checked without charge, and condemned the prac-
tice of leaving freight and express matter in open sheds at flag stations.
Per Commissioner McLean: (1) The railway company had not justified
the removal of the agent. (2) The general polity laid down in the Flag
Station case, 8 Can. Ry. Cas. 151, has not been modified. (3) By Order
No. 6242, railway companies are released from liability for goods un-
loaded at flag stations where there is no agent.
Rutter Station Patrons v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co. (Rutter Station Case),
14 Can. Ry. Cas. 1, 8 D.L.R. 711.
STATION LOCATION OF CHANGE IN.
After approving the location of a station upon a certain lot, the Board
will not approve another location of the same station upon a different
lot when the railway company has refused to carry out its original con-
tract with the owner of the first lot. The Board, on fixing the location for
a railway station on the Transcontinental Ry. at one of two conflicting
sites proposed by representatives of settlements closely situated to each
other and bearing similar names, will not restrain the location of a sec-
ond station at the other site on the application of the railway on a case
for additional facilities being made out.
Kelly v. Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co. (Hazelton B.C. Townsite Case),
14 Can. Ry. Cas. 15, 5 D.L.R. 303.
GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL DUTY AS TO STATIONS LOCATION UNJUST DIS-
In deciding between conflicting applications for the location of a sta-
taon, the Board should only intervene m the ease of unjust discrimination
between the railway company and the landowner?. IB deciding upom
a location of a station, the Board should DO* deal with the poamUe
growth of a new town, but should ensure that the patrons of the railway
should be provided with proper facilities in the public interest.
Druid Landowners r. Grand Trunk Pacific By. Co., 14 Can. Ry. Cas.
20. 7 D JJR- SML
The Board refused an application for an order directing a railway com-
pany to establish a station at the crossing of another railway about
two uuks distant from its existing station, where a towmste had been
located, elevators erected and a municipality organized, the usual dis-
tance between stations being eight or ten miles. [Eby et aL T. Grand
Trunk Pacific By. Co.. 13 Can. By. Cas. 2. followed.] '
Forward T. Canadian Pacific By. Co. (Forward Towusfte Case*. 14 Can.
By. Cas. 377.
SAFETY or STATIONS, APPBOACHES xs PLATFORMS BAIL.WAT BCEACH or
KTATTTOBT DCIT - NEGLECT TO FTK^ISH SCTTABLE ACCOMMODATION FOB
PASSEXCEKS AT KTATIOX - ABSEXCC OF STATION HOCSF-
Morrison T. Pere Uarquette By. Co^ 4 O.W.X. 544, 27 Oi.fi. 271, affirm-
ing judgment of Britton. J_ 4 O.W.X. 181.
DCTT AS TO DEPOTS - STOPPING PI-ACES - BOABD OF RAltWAT COXlO8BmuV
FJKS RB&TTLATIOS OF LOCATION or STATIONS AXD sincxs BAIL.WAT
EXPiorrcxe TOWXSITE DISBEEABD or PCBUC COXTEXIEXCE.
Be Cutknife Stations. 7 D.LJL S44. 21 WX.B. 382.
Ecn_*no^ LOCATION OF STATTOX EjwuixxrsG TFFI-
cruriEs PUBUC COXTEXIEJCCE.
Be South Hazelton. 8 DJ^B. 1036, 22 W.LB. 445.
The Board win not permit a railway company to change the place at
which its predecessors in title were compelled to make stops where by MB
Act of incorporation the municipal by-laws granting franchisee for the
building of road and designating such stopping places were continued in
Be London 4 Lake Erie Transportation Co_ 10 D.LJR. 11, 15 Can. Br.
KEGLBCT TO FCKSTTSH ACCOM MOBATIOX F* PASSEXCXSS AT STATION Ex-
posrse or PASSEXCCB TO cou>.
Where a uiuugful act has occasioned exposure to the weather, and ill-
ness has resulted from such exposure, such illness is not to be regar.fe.1
as due to an interrening independent cause. The rule with regard to re-
motenew of damage is the same whether the damages are claimed in an
action of contract or of tort. The inquiry is. what is the natural and
probable consequence of the breach? [Hobbs T. London 4 South Western
By. Co. '1873|. L.B. 1O Q.B. 111. distinguished. MrMahoa T. Field
(1881), 7 Q.BJD. 531, and The Xotting Hill (1884*, 9 PJ>. 105. specially
referred to:] And held, in thi* case, affirming the judgment of Britton.
J-, 27 O.UB. 271, that the plaintiff wa* entitled to recover far Ub Ion* off
health occasioned by the defendants default and neglect and breach of
statutory obligation; and that the jury had rightly measured the full
amount of his damage: ss. 284 (1) (a), (7), and 427 (2), of the Rail-
way Act, 1906. The amendment to the Railway Act, by 7 & 8 Edw. VII.
c. 60, s. 10, shews that, even if the Board had a right to interfere, the ac-
tion of the person aggrieved was not taken away.
Morrison v. Pere Marquette Ry. Co., 12 D.L.R. 344, 15 Can. Ry. Cas.
406, 27 O.L.R. 551.
[Affirmed in 15 Can. Ry. Cas. 406, 12 D.L.R. 344, 28 O.L.R. 319.]
FAILURE TO PROVIDE EXPOSURE OF PASSENGER TO ELEMENTS.
The failure of a railway company to provide a suitable station house
at a regular stopping place, as required by s. 284 of the Railway Act.
1906. renders it liable for the resultant illness occasioned a passenger from
exposure to the elements while waiting at night for a train. [Morrison
v. Pere Marquette Ry. Co., 4 O.W.N. 544, 27 O.L.R. 551, affirmed.]
Morrison v. Pere 'Marquette Hy. Co., 12 D.L.R. 344, 15 Can. Ry. Cas.
406, 28 O.L.R. 319.
UNJUST DISCRIMINATION FACILITIES FOR UNLOADING. DELIVERY AND SALE
Under the Railway Act, the statutory duties of the railway company
to furnish facilities relate, in so far as the terminal station is concerned,
merely to the unloading and delivery of the goods and do not include
facilities for their sale; thus the prohibitions, against undue preference or
unjust discrimination in furnishing facilities do not apply to the failure
or refusal of a railway company to allot space to a wholesale fruit firm
in a building owned by it used by other fruit dealers as a market into
which railway tracks run. [Re Western Tolls. 17 Can. Ry. Cas. 123,
pp. 148 to 156; Twin City Transfer Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 15 Can. Ry.
Cas. 323, followed; Purcell v. Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co., 13 Can. Ry.
Cas. 194; Donovan v. Pennsylvania Ry. Co., 199 U.S.R. 279; South Western
Produce Distributors v. Wabash Ry.'Co., 20 I.C.C.R. 458; Cosby v. Rich-
mond Transfer Co., 20 I.C.C.R. 72; Perth General Station Committee v.
Ross (1897), A.C. 479, at pp. 479, 482: Barker v. Midland Ry. Co., 18
C.B. 46, referred to.]
Cuneo Fruit & Importing Co. v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 18 Can. Ily.
[Followed in Congreave v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co.. 19 Can. Ry. Cas. 423.]
CLOSING REVENUE AGENT.
The Board has fixed an arbitrary amount of $15,000 as the revenue
which a railway company should derive at a station to warrant it in
ordering the maintenance of an agent.
Ozias v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 425.
PASSENGERS ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FACILITIES.
The obligations of a carrier are to provide proper facilities for the ar-
rival and departure of passengers subject to regulations for the proper
policing of its station premises. [Twin City Transfer Co. v. Can. Pac.
Ry. Co., 15 Can. Ry. Cas. 323, followed.]
Twin City Transfer Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 16 Can. Ry. Cas. 435.
[Followed in Congreave v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 19 Can. Ry. Cas. 423.]
FACILITIES CONVENIENCE OF PUBLIC.
Notwithstanding continued failure of a railway company, as lessee, to
meet its obligations to another railway company, as lessor, for existing
privileges in connection with the joint use of station premises, the lessor
may be required to extend further privileges to the lessee in such premises,
if it be At mm that such further privileges are necessary to enable the
lessee to afford proper convenience *md facilities to the public.
Can. Northern By. Co. v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co- 30 Can. By. Cas- 67.
Arrui A IMEVT or FHUCAXETT ACEST
Where the earnings at a station, apart from grain, from a considerable
percentage of the total earnings, amounting to at least $15.000. a per-
manent agent should be appointed. The expression -principally" in sec-
tion 5 of General Order No. 54. dated January 6, 1910, is not to be con-
strued as meaning that in rases where the grain movement is the principal
business, or even constitutes more than 50 per cent of the whole earnings,
section 4 is not to apply.
Oakdafe Grain Growers Assn. T. Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co., 30 Can.
Ry- Cas. 70.
The question of a location of a station, under s. 258 of the Railway Act,
is entirely a matter for the Board's discretion, which can be exercised
irrespective of apparent conflict of agreements and ratifying Acts. [Ottawa
v. Canada Atlantic and Ottawa Elec. Ry. Cos. (Bank Street Subway Case .
33 Can. S.C.R. 376. 5 Can. Ry. Cas. 136. referred to.]
Vancouver v. Vancouver, Victoria 4 Eastern Ry. etc., COL, 30 Can. By.
i?TATK>x AGEXT RAH. AXD WATE* EAKXTXC&.
Under s. 333 * 3 > of the Railway Act. 1906. when a rail carrier subject
to the jurisdiction of the Board owns, operates or uses a water carrier
as a direct connection with the parent rail carrier, between any Canadian
teminns of the rail carrier and another port in Canada, the earnings for
the water portion should be considered as part of the through route and
tolL Applying this principle to shipments of silver lead ore from New
Hazleton to Vancouver, the earninzs at the former station were found b
the Board to justify the retention of a station agent at that point.
Grand Trunk Pacific By. Co. v. New Hazehon. 30 Can. By. Cas. 169.
FLAG STAHOX Disczenox EAKCTCGS AGKXT.
The practice of the Board is not to direct that a flag station shall be
made an agency point unless there is a business of $15.000 per annum
at the point in question. Carriers, with a view to expanding ImiiiuVm,
have a wider discretion to make ventures in creating agency points than
the Board. Where the earning power of a carrier at a station is low the
matter to be considered is what accommodation it is reasonable for the
public to expect.
Be Lower Argyle Station, 31 Can. By. Cas. 434.
LOCATHW Or STATIONS - FLAG STATJOS - DlSCWCTIOX - REASOT AKUE FACTLI-
The general intention of the Railway Act is that the initial discretion
as to the location of stations shall be with the carrier. The Board is
justified in intervening only when there has been an unreasonable exercise
of this discretion, or when there are exceptional circumstances. In ad-
judicating on the location of stops the Board win take into consideration
the average of convenience to the public and the obligation of the carriers
to afford reasonable facilities, having in view the nature of traffic on the
railway, and win give due regard to the effect of additional stops on the
ability of the carriers to give efficient through service in competition with
Hartin et.al. v. Can. Northern Ry. Co. (Twin Elm Rag Stop Case i ,
21 Can. Ry. Cas. 437.
STATION AGENT ADEQUATE SERVICE APPOINTMENT.
The Board refused an application for the appointment of an agent
where it appeared that it was almost impossible for railways to obtain
agents to man station* much more important than the 4th class station
in question, and an agent could not be installed without depriving a
more important station of adequate service.
Edmonton Board of Trade v. Can. Northern Ry. Co. (Legal Station
Case), 24 Can. Ry. Cas. 7.
The Board allowed the agents at five stations to be dispensed with and
refused the application in the case of six others.
Re Quebec, Montreal & Southern Ry. Co., 24 Can. Ry. Cas. 229.
FLAG STATIONS NECESSITY FOR APPROVAL OF BOARD.
When a railway company opens a station and appoints a permanent
agent there, business in that locality is built up on the assumption that
the station will continue to be a permanent station; and the Board should
be consulted and the representatives of the public heard, before such a
station is closed, or turned into a mere flag station.
Re Removal of Agents from Agency Stations, 27 W.L.R. 387.
FACILITIES TRAFFIC STATIONS SIDINGS EXISTING HIGHWAY DIS-
The Board will not order a carrier to provide facilities for traffic, such
as stations or sidings in order to offset existing highway disadvantages.
The Board refused to order the construction of a freight shed, shelter and
siding half way between two stations, eight miles apart. [Pheasant
Point Farmers v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 34 Can. Ry. Cas. 13, 7 D.L.R. 887,
Kelly v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 24 Can. Ry. Cas. 367.
B. Bus Line; Hackmen; Transfer Companies.
CABMEN AND 'BUSMEN DESIGNATION OF PLACES FOR VEHICLES TO STAND
A cabman or 'busman carrying on a general business has no special
rights in connection with traffic to or from a railway station. He has a
general right to take his cab or 'bus to the station for the purpose of dis-
charging passengers; and he has the same right to back his 'bus up to
the station platform, at a convenient spot for receiving passengers. The
railway company is under an obligation to see that passengers are not
unduly importuned by cabmen or 'busmen at or on its platform; and in
the discharge of that obligation, the railway company has the right to
designate the points where the traveling public will be received from cabs
and 'busses, and where they will go for such conveyances on the arrival
of trains. [South Western Produce Distributors v. Wabash Ry. Co., 20
I.C.C.R. 458; Donovan v. Pennsylvania Ry. Co., 199 U. S. 279, distin-
Purcell v. Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co., 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 194, 28 W.L.R.
[Affirmed in 15 Can. Ry. Cas. 314.]
Am appeal froat the jadgWat of the Beard restraiaiag the respoademt
fromi aajttsUy dLsenBtiBatiag agaiaX the appikaat. was dsaaissed with
respect to the eraliag rprriil cinmastaace*. bat withovt iatradiag hy
each diMt*r! to eaat aay ieaM apoa the right of the appettaats to
take sach steps as BMT he ronnm to auiataia order wtthia the liauts
f its itafiaa grand. ' [Parcell v. Gramd Traak Pacific Ry- Co_ 13 Cam.
Ry. Cas. 194. afinaed. j
*Graad Traak Pacific Ry. Co. v. PureeD. 13 Caa. RT. Ca*. 314.
HjtCKS. C**a^ EXOLTSITE rUTDXI^ES- - DbSCSDirXAXllKS.
The graat hj a railway coatpaar to oae trutrfer or has cnaipaay of the
ex^ta^ire privilege of soliritiag paiBgeri oa depot property is aot aa
aajasc diseriauaatioa agaia^t aaother traa*f*r eampmmy witaia the ia-
hdbhkw of a*. O4. 317. of the Raihraj Art. 190(6, wkki prevwte di-
aaeeapH^. shippers aad >iaiii^a>< i of freisht. hat
the aeacies eatptoTinl for merriap or deiiveriag traffic.
at, to. or froai railway staUoas. [PareeU r. Graad Traak Pacifir Ky. Gou
13 Caa. Ry. Ca&. 194, dmiagwhrd. j ^ace a railway atatioa i* private
property as betwcea a railway maapaay aad the eaeral pvhlir exnytaa*
persoas who have onaaoa to ase it for the paupun of traasportatioa. the
i aaipiaj any graat the esrhKire prinh^e to a has. or traasfar
of aalicitiBg withia Its- statioas the carriage of paaaBBgera aad
A railway cnaipiaT ma aot prohihit the rmipt aad ilinhiifi of
gers aad baggage at static* platforms by afl hat oae has or trar fer -
paay. ilthoagh rranaiihh regaJatxaas aay he iaipojed oa the privilege:
aiare the railway caaapaay's daty to its paaieager^ re^nires that adefaatr
aad saitaMe aceoaiBMidatioas he faraiihrd for the arrival aad departore
of pajucagtrs aad their baggage froam statioas by swh awaa a* the
butter any desire to <wp!oy. n*arcen \. Graad Traak Facifie Ry. Co_ 13
Caa. Ry. Ca*. 14: Doaovaa v. Peaa^yhraaia Co_ 199 UJ5UR. 279; Sntth
Westera Prodare Dbtrihators v. Walw^h Ry. Co. 30 bterstate Coae-
aieree R. 45S: aad Crochy T. Riduanod Traa*fer Cou. 23 laterstate Coat-
aa>ne R. 7i lefeiied to.]
Twia City Traasfer Co. T. Cam. Pae. Ry. Co, 11 DXJR. 744, 15 Caa.
Ry. Ca*_ 323.
[FoDowed ia Twia City Traasfer Co. T. Caa. Pae. Ry. COL, 16 Cam. Ry.
Ot^ 435: Cameo Fruit. ete_ Co. v. Graad Treat Ry. OB, 18 Cam. Ry. Cas.
414; Coagreave T. Caa. Pae. Ry. Cou 19 Cam. Ry. Cas. 423; dmiagoiflbed
ia City Traasfer Co. v. Cam. Xorthera Ry. COL. 19 Cam. Ry. Ca*. 427.
MSCBTMTXATJO3K - TKAXSTEB COMTAXIES.
A carrier any remt space ia its statioms to tramsfer rnaipink n oa dif-
fereat tena for each withoot coauag withia the iahibitioB* as to di~-
aiBuaatioa coataiaed ia e& 2S4. 317 of the Railway Art. 199C.
Twia City Transfer Co. T. Cam Pae. Ry. Co, 1C Cam. Ry. Ca~. 435.
[FoDoweii ia Coagreave T. Cam Pae. Ry. Co, 19 Cam. Ry. Ca*. 423.]
CAIBIEBS SIATIOXS TJLSFE
A carrier any allot spate ia its statJoas to tramsfer coBtpaaie? oa
diflereat teras far each withoat laaiiaf: withia the iahibitioas as to di*-
rriauaatioB coataiaed ia **. 2$4. 317. of the Railway Act, 19ML [Twia
City TraasJer Co. T. Cam. Pae. Ry. Co.. 1C Cam. Ry. Cas. 435. followed.]
Baaff Livery 4 Bnnaira T. Caa. Pae. Ry. COL, 19* Cam. Ry. Cas 425.
PASSENGEBS ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FACILITIES POLICE REGULATIONS.
The obligations of a carrier are to provide proper facilities for the
arrival and departure of passengers, subject to regulations for proper
policing of its station premises within which the allotment of space falls.
[Twin City Transfer Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 15 Can. Ky. Cas. 323, 1G
Can. Ry. Cas. 435, followed.]
Banff Livery & Busmen v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 19 Can. Ry. Cas. 425.
UNJUST DISCRIMINATION FACILITIES PASSENGERS.
A carrier's obligation, at a station, to its passengers, is to provide
proper facilities for their arrival and departure, but it is not permitted to
discriminate between passengers so using its facilities by ss. 284 and 317
of the Railway Act, 1906. [Twin City Transfer Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co.,
15 Can. Ry. Cas. 323, 16 Can. Ry. Cas. 435; Cuneo Fruit & Importing Co.
v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 18 Can. Ry N Cas. 414, followed.]
Congreave v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 1!* Can. Ry. C'as. 423.
,] CRISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST CONTRACT.
Where no public interest is involved, and no inconvenience results to
the public by the operations at a railway station of two transfer com-
panies, the Board will not interfere between them on the mere question
of their contractual rights, which should be decided in the regular Courts.
Complaint of breaches of contract to which the applicant and respondent
are parties. [Twin City Transfer Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 15 Can. Ry.
Cas. 323, distinguished.]
City Transfer Co. v. Can. Northern Ry. Co., 19 Can. Ry. Cas. 427.
C. Injuries at Stations.
STATION BUILDINGS PLANKED WAY INVITATION TO PUBLIC TO USE DUIY
The approach to a station of the Grand Trunk Ry. from the highway
was by a planked walk crossing several tracks, and a train stopping at the
station sometimes overlapped this walk, making it necessary to pass
round the rear car to reach the platform, J., intending to take a train at
this station before daylight, went along the walk as his train was coming
in, and seeing, apparently, that it would overlap, started to go round the
rear, when he was struck by a shunting engine and killed. It was the
duty of this shunting engine to assist in moving the train on a ferry, and
it came down the adjoining track for that purpose before the train had
stopped. Its headlight was burning brightly, and the bell was kept ring-
ing. There was room between the two tracks for a person to stand in
safety. In an action by the widow of J. against the company: Held, Four-
nier and Gwynne, JJ., dissenting, that the company had neglected no duty
which it owed to the deceased as one of the public: Held, per Strong
and Patterson, JJ., that, while the public were invited to use the planked
walk to reach the station, and also to use the company's premises, when
necessary, to pass around a train covering the walk, there was no implied
guaranty that the traffic of the road should not proceed in the ordinary
way, and the company was under no obligation to provide special safe-
guards for persons attempting to pass round a train in motion: Held,
per Taschereau, J., that the death of the deceased was caused by his own
negligence. Decision of the Court of Appeal, 16 A.R. (Ont.), 37, affirmed.
Jones v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 18 Can. S.C.R. 696.
ACCOMMODATION STATIOX AT KAH.WAT raossrvc INJCT TO FASSEXGEK
A pmVMBamr aboard a railway train. >iormboand at I-, left the train
and attempted to walk through the storm to his home, a few mile? dis-
tant. Whilst proceeding along the railway, in the direction of an adjacent
public highway, he was struck by a locomotive engine and killed. There
was no depot or agent maintained by the company at J-_ but a room in a
nail building there was used as a waiting room, passenger tickets were
sold and fares charged to and from this point, and. for a number of years.
travelers had been allowed to make use of the permanent way in order
(o reach the nearest highways, there beinj; n other passage way pro-
vided. In an action by his administrators, for damages: Held. Tasche-
reau and King. JJ.. dissenting, that, notwithstanding the long user of
the permanent way in passing to and from the highways by passengers
taking and leaving the company's trains, the deceased could not, under
the circumstances, be said to have been there by the invitation or license
of the company at the time he was killed and that the action would not
Grand Trunk By. Co. v. Anderson. 28 Can. S.C.R. 541.
[Referred to in Burke v. British Columbia Eke. Ry. Co^ 7 B.CJL 88.
followed in De Vries v. Can. Pae. Ry. Co.. 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 375.]
STATION BCULDLXGS DANGEBOCS WAT lyrrtATiox OK
The approach to a station from the highway was by a planked walk cross-
ing several tracks, and a train stopping at the station sometimes over-
lapped this walk, making it necessary to pass around the rear ear to reach
the platform. J., intending to take a train at this station before daylight.
went along the walk as his train was coming in, and seeing, apparently.
that it would overlap, started to go round the rear, when he was struck
by a shunting engine and killed. It was the duty of this shunting *^gi
to assist in moving the train on a ferry, and it came down the adjoining
track for that purpose before the train had stopped. Its headlight was
burning brightly, and the bell was kept ringing. There was room between
the two tracks for a person to stand in safety. In an action by the widow
of J. against the company: Held, affirming the judgment of the Court
of Appeal. 16 A.R. (Ont.) 37, Fournier and Gwynne, JJ., dissenting, that
the company had neglected no duty which it owed to the deceased as one
of the public: Held, per Strong and Patterson. JJ_, that, while the pub-
lic were invited to use the planked walk to reach the station, and also to
use the company's premises, when necessary, to pass around a train cover-
ing the walk, there was no implied guaranty that the traffic of the road