Page images
PDF
EPUB

1

liim to the same extent precisely as the company itself, while continuing the same business. Any other view of the liability of such intruder would be to allow him to allege his own wrong in defense. It would be perplexing in the extreme to require strangers suffering injury through the negligence of operatives under a carriers control, to look beyond the party exercising such control. The party having this independent control is, in general, liable for the acts of those under such control, whether of contract or not.'

Where a railroad company runs over the line of another road, it has the same duty and is under the same obligations relating to its passengers, as bind it over its own line.? Where the beneficial ownership and management of a railroad is with a new company that has purchased it, although the former owners remain in nominal possession, both or either can be made liable for injuries caused by negligence in its management."

A railway company operating its trains over another's road at the time of an accident is liable at common law as a common carrier.' If a pilot has actual control of a train going over a railroad. but belonging to another road, his employers are liable for an accident due to his negligence, even if the company owning the train is also liable.•

If a railroad company is using tracks belonging to a third party, and the dangerous character of such tracks might have been discovered by the exercise of due care, it will be liable for an accident occasioned thereby and resulting in the death of a passenger, whether the defect was in the original construction of the road, or was due to the failure of the owner to make repairs, or however otherwise it may have been caused."

$ 15.2. Joint Use of Road by Carriers. Where the lessor reserves a right to occupy a portion of a pier, Sprague v. Smith, 29 Vt. 421. Self v. London, B. & 8. C. R. Co. 42 L. T. N. S. 179; White v. Hitchburg R. Co. 136 Mass. 324; McElroy v. Nashua & L. R. Corp. 4 Cush. 400; EQton v. Boston & L. R. Co. 11 Allen, 505; Richardson v. Great Eastern R. Co. L. R. 10 C. P. 486; Stetler v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 46 Wis. 502;

Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Peyton, 106 III. 534. 3 Lockhart v. Little Rock & M. R. Co. 40 Fed. Rep. 631. Eureka Springs R. Co. v. Timmons, 51 Ark. 459. "Jones v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 8 Mackey, 178. Littlejohn v. Fitchburg R. C.. 2 L. R. A. 502, 148 Mass. 478.

which he has leased, there remains a joint and several liability for injuries caused from non-repair of the pier on both the lessor and lessee. A party in actual possession of a city pier is responsible in damages for injuries received on account of its bad condition, irrespective of the question of ownership and in suits for such damges, the defendant's possession being shown, the question of title does not arise. An agreement between A and B, joint possessors of a pier, that B shall keep it in good repair is no defense to an action against A by a third party to recover damages arising from its defective condition. Where the owners of a pier in New York City leased it to a third party who agreed to keep it in as good repair as it then was, reserving to themselves a right to use and occupy as much of the pier as their business might require, and under this agreement continued to use the dock, it was held that this was a joint possession, rendering them jointly liable with their lessee, for the death of a horse caused by the defective condition of the pier.'

The negligence of the carrier may be of duties as owner of the line, or it may be negligence in respect to cars; or it may consist in negligence as to both, or in its user of them as a carrier, It is only where the injury arises from neglect of their duty as carriers using the lines or the cars of another company, and they have undertaken a duty towards the plaintiff to see that he is carried carefully as regards the other company, as well as themselves, that special difficulty arises. They can hardly be expected to be answerable for the negligence of another company over whose railway line, cars and employés they have no control; when they have discharged their duty with care with regard to both themselves and to the other company, they cannot perhaps be held for negligence of the other company against which they could not guard."

Cannavan v. Conklin, 1 Daly, 509. * Thomas v. Rhymney R. Co. L. R. 6 Q. B. 266, 40 L. J. Q. B. 89; Birkett v.

Whiteharen Junction R. Co. 4 Hurlst. & N. 730, 28 L. J. Exch. 348; Great Western R. Co. v. Blake, 7 Hurlst. & N. 987, 31 L. J. Exch. 346; Wright v. Midland R. Co. 42 L. J. Exch. 89, L. R. 8 Exch. 137; Buaton v. North Eastern R. Co. L. R. 3 Q. B. 549, 37 L. J. Q. B. 258; Foulkes v. Metro. politan Dist. R. Co. L. R. 4 C. P. Div. 267, 48 L. J. C. P. 565, 5 C, P. Div. 157.

[ocr errors]

CHAPTER XXVII.

CARRIER'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR BAGGAGE.

8 153. Carrier's Liablility for Loss of Baggage.

154. Act of God as Releasing Carrier. $ 155. There must be a Delivery of Baggage to the Carrier. a. What Comes within the Term Passenger's Baggage."

“ $ 156. Regulations Restricting Liability for Baggage. $ 157. Termination of Liability. 8 158. Liability of Connecting Carriers. 3 159. Lien on Baggage for Charges.

160. Action for Loss of Baggage.

$ 153. Carrier's Liability for Loss of Baggage.

A carrier is liable for the loss of the baggage of a passenger,' even though fare was paid by another. The fare paid by a passenger to a carrier includes transportation of his baggage; and the carrier has a lien thereon for the fare, and may detain the same until payment thereof.' The term “luggage” as used in the civil codes of the states, has the same meaning as the word “baggage.” • A railroad ticket entitling the purchaser to transportation in the the first class passenger coaches gives him a right to have his luggage transported at the same time free of charge, but does not give the right to transportation of any merchandise or property not included in the term “luggage. Dixon v. Richelieu Nav. Co. 15 Ont. App. Rep. 647, 39 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.

425; Logan v. Pontchartrain R. Co. 11 Rob. (La.) 24; Haickins v. Hoffman, 6 Hill, 586; Bennett v. Dutton, 10 N. H. 481; Hopkins v. Westcott, 6 Blatchf. 69: Central Trust Co. of New York v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co.

39 Fed. Rep. 417. * Nugent v. Boston, C. & M. R. Co. 5 New Eng. Rep. 869, 80 Me. 62. 3 Roberts v. Koehler, 30 Fed. Rep. 94. Pfister v. Central Pac. R. Co. 70 Cal. 169, Rome R. Co. v. Wimberly, 75 Ga. 316; Wilson v. Grand Trunk R. Co. 56 Me, 60.

.

The responsibility of coach proprietors carrying passengers with their baggage stands, as to the baggage, upon the ordinary footing of common carriers.' The carrier's liability for the safe delivery of baggage applies to omnibus proprietors; and a street car company will be equally liable for baggage delivered to it.'

In Clark v. Burns, 118 Mass. 275, the court says: “The defendants, as owners of steamboats, carrying passengers and goods for hire, were not innkeepers.” But the law is well settled that carriers are the insurers of baggage in the same manner and to the same extent as of goods or freight. Their responsibility is that of insurers against all loss from whatever cause, except the act of God, the public enemy, or the contributory negligence of the passenger.'

A passenger purchased a round trip ticket to Niagara Falls, over the Mobile route, and there purchased over the New York Central a round trip ticket to New York City and return, having his baggage checked in New York to New Orleans, exhibiting his ticket, but, through mistake of the baggage master of the New York Central road, he received checks on a different route-without examining them. In an action it was ruled the passenger can not maintain a claim against the New York Central road for injury sustained by his baggage while being transported over a route over which he held no checks.' A receipt by a carrier between two points, of the baggage of a passenger on another line between the same points, who has paid no fare to the first carrier, is held not to constitute a special contract with the first carrier rendering it liable for the loss of the baggage;' but, on appeal, this ruling was reverse, and the defendant was held, at least, liable as a warehouseman under the facts of the case. Where a "Christie v. Griggs, 2 Campb. 86; Allen v. Serall, 2 Wend. 327, 341, 6 Wend.

335, 341; Clarke v. Gray, 6 East, 564; Orange County Bank v. Brown, 9

Wend. 85, 114, 119; Cole v. Goodwin, 19 Wend. 254. Dibble v. Brown, 12 Ga. 217; Parmelee v. McNulty, 19 Ill. 556. 3 Levi v. Lynn & B. R. Co. 11 Allen, 300. *Oakes y. Northern Pac, R. Co. 12 L. R. A. 318, 20 Or. 392. 5 Oakes v. Northern Pac. R.Co. 12 L. R. A. 318, 20 Or. 392; Butcher v. Lon.

don & S. W. R. Co. 16 C. B. 13; Great Western R. Co. v. Goodman, 12

C. B. 313; Macrou v. Great Western R. Co. L. R. 6 Q. B. 612. Isaacson v. New York Cent. & H, R. R. Co. 25 Hun, 350. Fairfax v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. 5 Jones & S. 516; 8 Jones & S.

Fairfax v. Now York Cent. & I. R. R. (0.67 N. Y. 11.

a

ticket was purchased by one route and the baggage--by mistake of the railroad agent-delivered to another railroad and transported to New York and placed in its baggage room, and three days later, when the passenger had learned that his baggage had been carried by the defendant's railway, he demanded it, and a portmanteau could not be found; it was held in an action to recover from the defendant, that the delivery of the baggage to the defendant was the wrongful act of the railroad agent, who was not the passenger's agent in any sense that would enable him to bind the passenger by his act; but that defendant, at least, incurred the liability of a warehouseman and was bound to account for the baggage in some way, when demand was made, and show that it had disappeared without its fault.

Where the traveler tenders his trunks for checking, and is refused until tickets are procured, and during his absence to obtain such tickets, the baggage is weighed and placed in the baggage car, and on liis return the delivery of the checks is refused unless extra compensation is paid, and the passenger thereupon demands the return of his baggage and this is also refused because inconvenient, the curier is liable for conversion. But, where the traveler takes a train the same evening, under an arrangement with the carrier by which lie is to obtain his baggage without the checks, this will be held as a resumption of control, leaving the carrier liable only for nominal damages.'

The assurance to a passenger leaving the car for refreshments, that his personal Inggage will be safe, and its subsequent removal during his absence into another car, the passenger upon his return, noticing a portion of the baygage missing, will warrant a finding that it was lost through the negligence of the carrier.'

Although a passenger las forfeited his right, by stopping over in violation of the conditions of his ticket, if he is, nevertheless, carried without objection, the carrier is bound for reasonable care of his baggage.

Where baggage is delivered in one state to be transported to another, the contract is not controlled by statute of the state where

Fairfax v. Nero York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. 73 X. Y. 167.
? McCormick v. Pennsylvania Cent. R. CO. 80 N. Y. 353.
*Kinsley v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 125 Mass. 54.
*Smith v. Grand Trunk R. Co. 35 U. C. Q. B. 547.

2

« PreviousContinue »