Page images

fore, any general stipulation inserted in a carrier's bill of lading or receipt, by which the cousignor is made to take upon himself the risks of conveyance, or any special risks like those of fire, will be read with an implied exception of injuries for the want of ordinary care on the part of the carrier himself or his ser

vants. Carriers of passengers, it is also held, cannot [*686] relieve themselves from the *obligation to observe ordinary care by any contract whatsoever, even in the case of “drover's passes,” which are given without charge to those who accompany consignments of cattle,' or in cases where free passage is given as mere matter of courtesy or favor.' In New York and New Jersey, however, it is held to be entirely competent to contract against liability for any negligence but the personal negligence of the carrier himself; which, in the case of corporations, would embrace any negligence of their servants, and of all but the managing board.' The weight of authority, however, is most distinctly the other way, both in this country and in England." [*687) *Restrictions of Liability by Telegraph Companies. It

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Car. R R. Co., 64 N. C. 235; Great West. R. Co. o. Hawkins, 18 Mich. 427; S. C. 17 Mich. 57; Steele o. Burgess, 37 Ala. 247; Mobile, &c., R. R. Co. 0. Hopkins, 41 Ala. 486; Sou. Exp. Co. 0. Crook, 44 Ala. 468; South, &c., R. R. Co. o. Henlein, 52 Ala 606; Hooper o. Wells, 27 Cal. 11; Sager o. Portsmouth, &c., R. R. Co., 31 Me 228; Indianapolis, &c., R. R Co. o. Allen, 31 Ind. 394; Michigan, &c., R. R. Co. 0. Heaton, 37 Ind. 448; Virginia, &c., R. R. Co. 0. Sayers, 26 Grat.328; Graham o. Davis, 4 Ohio, (n. 8.) 362; Gaines o. Union Trans. Co., 28 Ohio, (N. 8.) 418; Adams Exp. Co. o. Stettaners, 61 Ill. 184; Levering o. Union Trans. Co., 43 Mo. 88; Sturgeon v. St. Louis, &c., R. R. Co., 65 Mo. 569; Swindler o. Hilliard, 2 Rich. 286; Berry o. Cooper, 28 Geo. 543; Georgia R R. Co. 0. Gann, 68 Geo. 350; Whitesides 0. Thurlkill, 20 Miss. 599; Sou. Exp. Co. o. Moon, 39 Miss. 822; Chicago, &c., Ry Co. o. A bels, 60 Miss. 1017; Welch 1. Boston, &c., R. R. Co., 41 Conn.

Kansas City, &c., Co. 0. Simpson, 30 Kan. 645; Moulton 0. St. Paul, &c., Co., 31 Minn 85; Black o. Goodrich Tr. Co., 55 Wis. 319; Cream City, &c., Co. v. Chicago, &c., Ry Co., 63 Wis. 93.

*New Jersey, &c., Co.o. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 344; York Co. o. Central R. R. Co., 3 Wall. 107; School Dist. 0. Boston, &c., R. R. Co., 102 Mass. 552; Condict v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 54 N. Y. 500; Powell o. Penn. sylvania R. R. Co., 32 Penn. St. 414;

Delaware, &c., R R. Co. o. Starrs, 69 Penn. St. 36; Mo. Val. R. R. Co. o. Caldwell, 8 Kan 244; N. O. Ins. Co. to New Orleans, &c., R. R. Co., 20 La. Ann, 302; Erie, &c., Tr. Co. o. Dater, 91 III. 195; Merch. Desp. Tr. Co. o. Leysor, 89 Ill. 43; McFadden o Miss. Pac. Ry Co, 92 Mo. 343. See Mitchell o. Georgia R. R. Co., 68 Geo. 644. Leaving cattle to die of neglect, is not negligenre, but an abandonment of the contract of carriage, and the carrier is responsible on that ground. Keeney o. Grand Trunk R. Co., 59 Barb. 104; S. C. 47 N. Y. 525. Though the bill of lading provides that in case of loss of goods the carrier shall be liable for a certain amount only, yet if the sum named was understood at the time not to be the real value, he will be liable for the full value if lost tbrough his negligence. U. S. Express Co. Backman, 28 Ohio, (N. 8.) 144. But if a reduced rate is given in consideration of which the liability is limited and the contract is fairly made, only the agreed amount can be recovered even if the injury is caused by nezli. gence. Hart o. Penn. Co., 112 U. S. 331; Graves o. Lake Shore, &c., Co., 137 Mass. 33; Hill o. Boston, &c., Co., 144 Mass. 284; Elkins r. Empire Tr. Co., 81 * Penn. St. 315; Louisville, &c., R. R. Co. ^. Sherrod, 4 South. Rep. 29 (Ala.); Centr. R. R &c., Cr, o. Smitha, Id. 708 (Ala.): Si. Louis, &c., Co. Weakly, 8 S W. Rep. 134 (Ark.). See Rosenfeld v. Decatur, &c., Ry Co., 103 Ind. 121.

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]



· Flinn o. Philadelphia, &c., R. R. Co., 1 Hout. 469; Cleveland, &c., R. R. Cn. o. Curran, 19 Ohio, (n. 8.) 1; Ohio, &c., R. R. Co. o Selby, 47 Ind. 471; Carroll ?. Miss. Pac. Ry Co., 88 Mo 239; Miss. Pac. Ry Co. 0. Cornwall, 8 S. W. Rep. 312 (Tex.) See Lawson o. Chicago, &c., Ry Co., 64 Wis. 447. Compare Gardner 0. New Haven, &c., R. R. Co. 61 Conn. 143.

2 Philadelphia, &c., R. R. Co. v. Derby, 14 How. 468; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. o. McCloskey, 23 Penn. St. 526; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. o. Butler, 57 Penn. St. 335; Ind. Cent. R. R. Co. o. Mundy, 31 Ind. 48; III. Cent. R. R. Co. 0. Read, 37 III 484; Gulf &c., Ry Co. o. McGown, 65 Tex. 640. See, also, Waterbury o. New York &c., Co., 17 Fed. Rep. 671 and note; Prince o. International, &c., R. R. Co., 64 Tex. 144; Sherman 0. Hanni. bal, wc., R. R. Co., 72 Mo. 62; Gradin o. St. Paul, &c., Co., 30 Minn. 217. So a servant carried free on his own business is a passenger, State o. Western Md. R. R. Co., 63 Md. 433; otherwise if so carried to his work as part of his contract of service. Vick 0. New York, &c., R. R. Co., 95 N. Y. 267.

3 Bissell 0. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 442; Wells o. N. Y. Cent. R. R Co., 24 N. Y. 181; Perkins o. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 196; Smith 0. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co., 24 N. Y.

222; Poucher 0. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 263; Wilson 0. New York, &c., Co., 97 N. Y. 87; Kinney 0. Cent. R. R. Co., 32 N. J. 407; S. C. 34 N. J., 513. See Knowlton, o. Erie R. Co., 19 Ohio, (N. 8.) 260. But there must be an express contract to that effect. Holsapple o. Rome, &c., Co., 86 N. Y. 275. Shipping at "owner's risk” will not excuse gross negligence, Canfield 0. Balt. &c., Co., 93 N. Y. 532. That one riding in a parlor car and paying for that privilege does not abrogate his agreement in his railroad pass against liability for negligence of the railroad corapany, see Ulrich o. New York,&c., R. R. Co., 15 N. E. Rep. 60 (N. Y.). The carrier does not escape liability to a U. 8. mail agent for negligence, by which he is injured in the course of his duty, because he has a pass with an exemption clause endorsed on it. Seybolt 0. New York, &c., Co., 95 N. Y. 562; and see cases in note to this case, 18 A. & E. R. R. Cas. 169. Under Penn. statutes such agent is not entitled to the care due a passenger. Penn. R. R. Co. 0. Price, 96 Penn. St. 256. In Massachusetts an express messenger riding under a release contract in a baggage car is held bound by the contract if injured there. Bates o. Old Colony R. R. Co., 17 N. E. Rep. 633.

[ocr errors]

is cnstomary for telegraph companies to send messages subject to a condition that they shall not be responsible for errors or delays, unless the message is repeated at the sender's cost. Such conditions have frequently been supported as reasonable. But the condition to be available must be brought to the

· The subject is exhaustively con- In Wisconsin if a strictly gratuitous sidered by Mr. Justice BRADLEY, in pass is given upon an agreement enRailroad Company o. Lockwood, 17 dorsed thereon to release from liabilWall, 357, which was the case of a ity for negligence, there can be no drover's pass. The authorities are

recovery except for recklessness or all examined with care, and the prin. such carelessness as is made & crime ciple of the decision is that careful. by statute. Annas o. Milwaukee, &c., ness and fidelity are essential duties Co., 67 Wis. 46. of the carrier's employment, which In Connecticut in such case there cannot be abdicated. It was recog. can be no recovery. Griswold c. nized in that case, as it has been gen- New York, &c., R. R. Co., 53 Cona. erally, that a drover's pass is not in 371. reality gratuitous, but must be con. The English law is affected by sidered as taken into account in pay. statute, which leaves the court to ing for the transportation of stock. determine the reasonableness of exWhether in the case of a strictly gra- emptions in carrier's contracts; but tuitous carriage the carrier might the courts hold contracts for exemp. stipulate against liability, the court tion from liability for negligence in was not called upon to decide. See, the transportation of goods unreason. also, Railway Company v. Stevens, 95 able. Peek d. N. Stafford R. Co., 10 U. S. 655. In Jacobus 0. St. H L. Cas. 473. They however hold Paul, &c, R. R. Co., 20 Minn. 125, it that carriers of passengers may stipwas said that the carrier is held to ulate in passes to drovers that the the same extreme care in such cases carrier shall not be responsible for as in others, but in Illinois where any risks. McCawley o. Furness, L. comparative negligence is recogniz- R. 8 Q. B. 57. ed, the court say of a stipulation 2 McAndrew o. Elec. Tel. Co., 170. against liability for negligence in B. 3; Ellis 0. Am. Tel. Co., 13 Allen, the case of a gratuitous carriage, 226; Grinnell o. West. U. Tel. Co., “Wbile we hold this agreement did 113 Mass. 299; 8. C. 18 Am. Rep. not exempt the railroad company 485; Clement o. West. U. Tel. Co., from the gross negligence of its em- 137 Mass. 463; Young o West. U. Tel. ployees, we are free to say that it Co., 65 N. Y. 163; Camp ». West. U. does exempt it from all other species Tel. Co., 1 Met. (Ky.) 161; West. C. or degrees of negligence not denom- Tel. Co. 0. Carew, 15 Mich. 525; De inated gross, or which might have Rulte r. N. Y., &c., Tel. Co., 1 Daly the character of recklessness." Ill. 547; Breese 0. U. S. Tel Co., 45 Cent, R. R. Co. o. Read, 37 III. 484. Barb. 274; 8. C. 48 N. Y. 132; Birney

knowledge of the party interested in the message, sender or receiver,' and in the absence of a provision requiring the message to be repeated, it would be void as an attempt by the company to relieve itself of the consequences of its own fanlt.'

The cases of carriers and telegraph companies have been specifically mentioned, because it is chiefly in these cases that such contracts are met with. But although the reasons which forbid such contracts have special force in the business of carrying persons and goods, and of sending messages, they apply universally, and should be held to defeat all contracts by which a party undertakes to put another at the mercy of his own faulty conduct.

[ocr errors]

1. N. Y., &c., Tel. Co., 18 Md. 341; can contract not to be responsible for Passmore o. W. U. Tel. Co., 78 Penn. their own carelessness.

Wann 0. St. 238; Wann o. West. U. Tel. Co., West. U. Tel. Co., 37 Mo. 472. See 37 Mo. 472; West. U. Tel. Co. o. West. U. Tel. Co. 0. Harris, 19 Ill. Edsall, 63 Tex. 668. But such con. App. 347; West. U. Tel. Co. 0. Shotditions are held void in Maine. Ayer ter, 71 Geo. 760;West. U. Tel. Co. o. 0. West. U. Tel. Co., 10 Atl. Rep. Crall, 17 Pac. Rep. 309 (Kan.). In 495. May limit its liability for error Colorado and Texas it is held that in unrepeated message where it is not the condition not to be responsible guilty of gross negligence. Hart o. for unrepeated messages is no defense West. U. Tel. Co., 66 Cal. 579; to an action for failure to deliver. Becker o. West. U. Tel. Co., 11 Neb. West. U. Tel. Co. 0. Grabam, 1 Col. 87; Kiley v. West. U. Tel. Co. 16 N. 230; Gulf, &c., Co. o. Miller, 7 S. W. E. Rep. 75 (N. Y.). See Thompson o. Rep. 653 (Tex.). In Maine and WisWest. U. Tel. Co., 61 Wis. 531. consin, it is decided that a condition

IN. Y., &c., Tel. Co. o. Dryburg, in sending a night message that the 35 Penn. St. 298. Compare Ellis 0. company sball be liable for errors or Am. Tel. Co., 13 Allen, 226. In Lou- delay only to the extent of what is isiana it is said it can be available, if received for sending the message is at all, only against the sender. La. void, as contrary to public policy. Grange o. Sou. West. Tel. Co., 25 La. Bartlett o. West. U. Tel. Co., 62 Me. Ann. 383.

209; Hibbard o. West. U. Tel. Co., 2 True o. Int. Tel. Co., 60 Me. 9. 33 Wis. 559. Nor can it limit the In Illinois the force of the condition damage to ten times the price. Marr seems to be restricted to errors arising 0. West. U. Tel. Co., 3 S. W. Rep. from causes beyond the company's 496 (Tenn.); West. U. Tel. Co. 0. control. Tyler o. West. U. Tel. Co., Shotter, 71 Geo. 760; West. U. Tel. 60 III. 421; 8. C. 14 Am. Rep. 38; Co. v. Harris, 19 III. App. 347. And, West. U. Tel. Co. o. Tyler, 74 Ill. 168. see Sweatland o. Illinois, &c., Tel. And see Sweatland o. Ill., &c., Tel. Co., 27 Iowa, 433; West. U. Tel. Co. Co., 27 Iowa, 432; Candee o. West. U. 0. Fenton, 52 Ind. 1; West. U. Tel. Tel. Co., 34 Wis. 471. In Missouri it Co. o. Meek, 49 Ind. 53; Birney o. N.. is denied that telegraph companies Y., &c., Tel. Co., 18 Md. 341.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]




When a bad Motive Important. In the course of the preceding pages it has been made very manifest that when the question at issue is, whether one person has suffered legal wrong at the hands of another, the good or bad motive which influenced the action complained of is generally of no importance whatever. What was said in the opening chapter of the work, that the exercise by one man of his legal right cannot be a legal wrong to another, has been abundantly shown to be justified by the authorities, even if it were not in itself a mere truism. “ An act which does not amount to a legal injury cannot be actionable because it is done with a bad intent.” i “Any transaction which would be lawful and proper, if the parties were friends, cannot be made the foundation of an action merely because they happened to be enemies. As long as a man keeps himself within the law by doing no act which violates it, we must leave his motives to Him who searches the heart.”. To state the point in a few words, whatever one

% has a right to do another can have no right to complain of.

Damage at the hands of Government. It has been shown, also, that when a government official assumes an authority which the law does not warrant him in exercising, he is personally responsible, whatever may have been his motive. The discussions in Milligan's case cover this point very fully." But if the

PARKE, B., in Stevenson o. Newn. bam, 13 C. B. 285, 297. See Floyd o. Barber, 12 Co. 23; Stowball o. Ansell, Comb. 11; Tayler o. Hendiker, 12 Ad. & El. 488; Heald o. Carey, 11 C. B. 977.

2 BLACK, J., in Jenkins o. Fowler, 24 Penn. St. 308, 310. See Fowlero. Jenkins, 28 Penn. St. 176; Covanho. van o. Hart, 21 Penn. St. 495; Clin.

ton o. Myers, 46 N. Y. 511; Frazier e. 0. Brown, 12 Ohio, (N. 8.) 294; Thom. asson 0. Agnew, 24 Miss, 43; McMil. lin o. Staples, 36 lowa, 532; Brothers 0. Morris, 49 Vt. 460; Kiff a. Youmans, 86 N. Y, 324; Estey u. Smith, 45 Mich. 402. See cases infra 832 et seq.

Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 3. See Planters' Bank o. Union Bank, 16

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »