TABLE OF CASES.

Willy. Mulledy, 78 N. Y. 310... 325 | Wolff v. Central R. Co. 68 Ga. 653 590 Wilsey. Louisville & N. R. Co.

Woolery v. Louisville, N. A. & C.
R. Co. 107 Ind. 381...
-6, 250, 260, 415, 430
Wooley v. Scovell, 3 Man. & R.

105...
Worcester Ex. Car Co. v. Penna.
R. Co. 2 Inters. Com.
Rep. 792..

Worden v. Humeston & S. R. Co.

Wordsworth v. Willan, 5 Esp. 273 27
Worley v. Cincinnati, H. & D. R.
Co. 1 Handy, 481
Wormsdorf v. Detroit City R. Co.
75 Mich. 472.
Worth v. Wilson, Wright (Ohio)
162.
Wright v. Caldwell, 3 Mich. 51.

Y.

Yeomans v. Contra Costa Steam

Nav. Co. 44 Cal. 71.8, 9, 698

Yerkes v. Keokuk N. L. Packet

Young v. Kansas City, St. J. & C.B.

R. Co. 33 Mo. App. 509 483 v. Mertens, 27 Md. 114 608 v. Penna. R. Co. 115 Pa. 112

178, 529

Co. 7 Mo. App. 265.... 694 Young's Estate, Re, 3 Md. Ch. 461 631

Yonge v. Kinney, 28 Ga. 111...63, 695
York Mfg. Co. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co.

70 U. S. 3 Wall. 107, 18
L. ed. 170

Z.

280

York, N. C. & B. R. Co. v. Crisp, 14 C. B. 527

264

696

Yorktown Turnp. Co. v. Leon-
hardt, 66 Md. 70.

Yorton . Milwaukee, L. S. & W.
R. Co. 54 Wis. 234. 239
-169, 199, 201
Young v. Bransford, 12 Lea, 232. 299
v. Few son, 8 Car. & P. 55. 284]

Zabriskie v. Smith, 13 N. Y. 322. 633
Zemp v. Wilmington & M. R. Co. 9
Rich. L. 84, 64 Am. Dec.

763.
411, 693
Zimmer v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R.
Co. 42 N. Y. S. R. 63. 265
Zoebisch v. Tarbell, 10 Allen, 385 385
Zunz v. Southeastern R. Co. L. R.
4 Q. B. 359
574

NEGLIGENCE.

IMPOSED DUTIES, CARRIERS.

CHAPTER I.

RELATION OF CARRIER AND PASSENGERS, HOW CREATED.

1. Who are Public Carriers of Passengers.

2. Who are Passengers.

a. Term not Restricted to Those Contracting.

b. Includes Everyone, not an Employé, in the Carrier's Charge. c. Mail Agent is a Passenger.

d. An Express Messenger is Entitled to Protection.

e. Circumstances Constituting and Suspending Relation of Passenger.

1. What Contract Contemplated.

2. Entering a Car by Permission or as Intruder.

f. When Children are Passengers.

3. Duty of Passenger Carrier not Necessarily in Contract, but Collateral.

§ 1. Who are Public Carriers of Passengers.

2

One who for hire;' undertakes the transportation of persons from place to place, as a business, as distinguished from an occasional act, or employment, is a public carrier of passengers. A

3

Fay v. The New World, 1 Cal. 348; Citizens Bank v. Nantucket S. B. Co. 2 Story, 16; Knox v. Rives, 14 Ala. 249.

Trent & M. Nav. Co. v. Wood, 3 Esp. 127.

Robinson v. Dunmore, 2 Bos. & P. 416; Davis v. Button, 78 Cal. 247; Citizens St. R. Co. v. Twiname, 10 West. Rep. 824, 111 Ind. 587; Bennett v. Peninsula & O. 8. B. Co. 6 C. B. 775; Anderson v. Scholey, 14 West. Rep. 517, 114 Ind. 553; Blanchard v. Isaacs, 3 Barb. 388.

common carrier may be a carrier of either passengers or freight, or both.'

The relation between the owner and manager of an elevator for passengers, and those carried in it, is similar to that between an ordinary public carrier of passengers and those carried by him; and he is to be treated as a public carrier of passengers and the same responsibilities rest on him as to diligence and care, as to the carriers of passengers by stage coach or railway.'

A railroad company in the general business of switching cars for all railroads which will furnish it business is a public carrier.* But a construction train, on which a person is permitted by the contractor to ride on paying fare, is a private conveyance, not rendering the contractor liable as a public carrier of passengers. But providing a hand-car may render a corporation liable as a carrier."

B

One is a public carrier who is engaged in the business of transporting passengers for hire in a stage coach,' on a railroad, on a street car, on a steamship," or on a ferry boat." A steamer engaged in tug service is not," but under circumstances it may 'Tompson-Houston Electric Co. v. Simon, 10 L. R. A. 251, 20 Or. 60. Goodsell v. Taylor, 4 L. R. A. 673, 41 Minn. 207.

'Treadwell v. Whittier, 5 L. R. A. 498, 80 Cal. 574.

4

Peoria & P. U. R. Co. v. United States Rolling Stock Co. 28 Ill. App. 79. Shoemaker v. Kingsbury, 79 U. S. 12 Wall. 369, 20 L. ed. 532; Nashville & C. R. Co. v. Messino, 1 Sneed, 220.

International & G. N. R. Co. v. Prince, 77 Tex. 569.

Bennett v. Dutton, 10 N. H. 481; Fairchild v. California Stage Co. 13 Cal. 599; Farish v. Reigle, 11 Gratt. 711; Stokes v. Sultonstall, 38 U. S. 13 Pet. 181, 10 L. ed. 115; Boyce v. California Stage Co. 25 Cal. 468; Lawrence v. Green, 70 Cal. 417.

'Davis v. Button, 78 Cal. 247; Dlabola v. Manhattan R. Co. 29 N. Y. S. R. 149; Oviatt v. Dakota Cent. R. Co. 43 Minn. 300; Kellow v. Central Iowa R. Co. 68 Iowa, 470.

'Citizens St. R. Co. v. Twiname, 10 West. Rep. 824, 111 Ind. 587; Galveston City R. Co. v. Hewitt, 67 Tex. 473.

10 Dodge v. Boston & B. S. S. Co. 2 L. R. A. 83, 148 Mass. 207; Keokuk N. L. Packet Co. v. True, 88 Ill. 608; Hall v. Connecticut River S. B. Co. 13 Conn. 320.

"Dudley v. Camden & P. Ferry Co. 42 N. J. L. 25; Wyckoff v. Queens County Ferry Co. 52 N. Y. 32; Clark v. Union Ferry Co. 35 N. Y. 485; White v. Winnisimmet Co. 7 Cush. 155.

12 Cook v. Houston Direct Nav. Co. 76 Tex. 353; Caton v. Rumney, 13 Wend. 387; Hays v. Mullar, 77 Pa. 238; Varble v. Bigley, 14 Bush, 698; Alexander v. Greene, 3 Hill, 9; East India Co. v. Pullen, 1 Strange, 690; Brind v. Dale, 8 Car. & P. 207; Wells v. Steam Nav. Co. 2 N. Y. 204.

become so. A vessel chartered to transport a single cargo is not a public carrier.' But a telephone message requesting a tug owner to send his tug and remove a quantity of hay if acted on constitutes such owner a common carrier, and does not authorize him to bind the sender of the message by engaging another tugand scow, so as to render the sender liable as bailee to its owner for the use of and injuries to the scow while it was employed in removing the hay.'

The liability of a sleeping car company is not that of a common carrier, but it is liable for ordinary negligence, or for an assault by its employés or a passenger. But a railroad using sleeping cars is liable for an injury to a passenger from defects in such cars as though it owned them."

A carrier may constitute itself a public carrier by advertising or by general acceptance of employment." Where a company owns a railroad in operation, bearing the name of the company, and which presumably the company constructed, the presumption is that the company operates it, and in order to release itself from liability from injuries to passengers, caused by the negligence of the employés operating the same, the burden of proof is upon it to show that it does not operate the road nor assume the duties of a public carrier. A properly equipped train of cars, standing upon a railway track, under circumstances inducing the belief that it is prepared to receive passengers and proceed upon its journey, presents an invitation to all prepared to accept the terms for transportation, which they are not guilty of negligence in acting upon.'

1Bussey v. Mississippi Valley Transp. Co. 24 La. Ann. 165; Clapp v. Stran ton, 20 La. Ann. 465; Davis v. Houren, 6 Rob. (La.) 255. See White v. The Mary Ann, 6 Cal. 472; Liver Alkali Co. v. Johnson, L. R. 9 Exch. 338. The Dan, 40 Fed. Rep. 691.

'Bleeker v. Satsop R. Co. (Wash.) Nov. 10, 1891.

Campbell v. Pullman Palace Car Co. 42 Fed. Rep. 484; Scaling v. Pullman Palace Car Co. 24 Mo. App. 20.

Campbell v. Pullman Palace Car Co. 42 Fed. Rep. 484.

Pennsylvania Co. v. Roy, 102 U. S. 451, 26 L. ed. 141; Duinelle v. New
York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. 8 L. R. A. 224, 120 N. Y. 117; Thorpe v. New
York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. 76 N. Y. 406.

Citizens St. R. Co. v. Twiname, 10 West. Rep. 824, 111 Ind. 587; Davis v.
Button, 78 Cal. 247.

Ferguson v. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. 63 Wis. 145.

'Nave v. Flack, 90 Ind. 205.