From this principle, universally recognized, springs the corollary that all such persons, natural and artificial, shall afford to such members of the public, as have occasion to transact with them business of the nature they are holding themselves out as being accustomed to do, safe and decent access to the places opened up for the transaction of the business in question. This safety does not mean mere physical safety; nor this decency mere absence of obscenity, but by the employment of the expression safe and decent access it is intended to connote also the notion of freedom from abuse, humiliation, insult, and other unbecoming and disrespectful treatment. A member of the public is not to be deterred from transacting or offering to transact business which the law compels a telegraph company to accept impartially from every person, by reason of the fact that he cannot enter the public office without being subjected to insult or personal affront." 1 § 932. Extent of duty to care for patrons. This duty of safeguarding and protecting passengers varies according to the passenger's apparent need of the same. The carrier is bound to warn all passengers of injuries likely to arise from the carrier's method of doing business which are known to the carrier and possibly unknown to the passenger. But he is not bound to warn him of risks which should be apparent to any reasonable man. For example, it is not the duty of the carrier to 2 1 Likewise those coming to an express office are entitled to proper treatment. Richberger v. American Exp. Co., 73 Miss. 161, 18 So. 922, 55 Am. St., Rep. 522, 31 L. R. A. 390 (1895). See, for example: Co. v. Winters, 175 Ill. 293, 51 V. Con New Jersey.-Whalen See, for example: awaken passengers upon their arrival at their stations,1 except in the case of the proprietor of a sleeping car whose undertaking obviously includes this service.2 As to whether the carrier need announce stations there is considerable conflict of authority. It will depend doubtless upon the established custom in that regard; but at all events such a custom once established must not be departed from in a particular case. It should be added that even in the case where the passenger is receiving from the employés of the company assistance which could not have been demanded by the passenger as of right, the company will be held liable for any negligence while extending such assistance.1 § 933. Special care in particular cases. The amount of care required in giving proper protection depends obviously upon the particular circumstances. Thus special care must be given to women,5 and still Wayne & E. Ry. Co., 86 Mich. 236, Missouri.-Miller v. St. Louis R. Texas.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Kendrick (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. 42 (1895). 2 See, for example: Alabama.-Pullman Co. v. Lutz, 154 Ala. 517, 45 So. 675, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 907 (1908). Kentucky.-Kentucky Central Ry. Co. v. Biddle, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 1363, 34 S. W. 904 (1896). Texas.-Pullman P. C. Co. v. Smith, 79 Tex. 468, 14 S. W. 993, 13 L. R. A. 215, 23 Am. St. Rep. 356 (1891). Wisconsin.-McKeon V. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 94 Wis. 477, 69 N. W. 175, 35 L. R. A. 252, 59 Am. St. Rep. 910 (1896). 3 See, for example: New York.-Mearns v. Central R. R. of N. J. Co., 163 N. Y. 108, 57 N. E. 292 (1900). Texas.-Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Goodyear, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 206, 66 S. W. 862 (1902). 4 See, for example: Alabama.-Williams v. Louisville & N. Ry. Co., 150 Ala. 324, 43 So. 576, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 413 (1907). Texas.-Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Wortham, 73 Tex. 25, 10 S. W. 741, 3 L. R. A. 368 (1889). See, for example: more perhaps to children unaccompanied.1 If incapacitated persons are accepted without attendants they must be assisted, and infirm persons should be given special attention. Those who are taken ill upon a journey must be cared for until they can be disposed of safely. And 3 Alabama.-Batton v. So. & No. Alabama R. R. Co., 77 Ala. 591, 54 Am. Rep. 80 (1884). Colorado.-Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Barker, 4 Colo. 344, 34 Am. Rep. 89 (1878). Missouri.-Craker v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 36 Wis. 657, 7 Am. Rep. 504 (1875). But if a woman carrying a child is attended by friends, the carrier may be justified in relying upon them to furnish necessary assistance in entering car. St. Louis, I. M. & So. Ry. Co. v. Green, 85 Ark. 117, 107 S. W. 168, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1148 (1908). 1 See, for example: Minnesota.-Jackson v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 74 Minn. 48, 76 N. W. 956 (1898). New York. Sheridan v. Brooklyn City & N. R. R. Co., 36 N. Y. 39, 93 Am. Dec. 490 (1867). Pennsylvania.-Pittsburg & M. Pass. Ry. Co. v. Caldwell, 74 Pa. St. 421 (1873). 2 See, for example: Minnesota.-Croom v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 52 Minn. 296, 53 N. W. 1128, 18 L. R. A. 602, 38 Am. St. Rep. 557 (1893). Mississippi.-New Orleans, J. & Gt. No. R. R. Co. v. Statham, 42 Miss. 607, 97 Am. Dec. 478 (1869). And see Brady v. Springfield Traction Co. (Mo. App.), 124 S. W. 1070 (1910). But see Louisville, N. & Gt. So. R. R. Co. v. Fleming, 14 Lea (Tenn.), 128 (1884). 'Mississippi.-Sevier v. Vicksburg & M. R. R. Co., 61 Miss. 8, 48 Am. Rep. 74 (1883). North Dakota.-Haug v. Gt. Northern Ry. Co., 8 N. D. 23, 77 N. W. 97, 42 L. R. A. 664, 73 Am. St. Rep. 727 (1898). 4 District of Columbia.-Lemont v. Washington & G. Ry. Co., 1 Mackay, 180, 47 Am. Rep. 238 (1881). Georgia.-Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Madden, 69 S. E. 165 (1910). Kansas. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R. Co. v. Weber, 33 Kan. 543, 6 Pac. 877, 52 Am. Rep. 543 (1885). Louisiana.-Conolly v. Crescent City R. R. Co., 41 La. Ann. 57, 5 So. 259, 17 Am. St. Rep. 389, 3 L. R. A. 133 (1889). Massachusetts.-Connors v. Cunard S. S. Co., 204 Mass. 310, 90 N. E. 601, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 171 (1910), semble. Ohio.-Railway Co. v. Salzman, 52 Ohio St. 558, 40 N. E. 891, 31 L. R. A. 261 (1895). Pennsylvania.-McHugh v. Schlosser, 159 Pa. St. 480, 28 Atl. 291, 23 L. R. A. 574, 39 Am. St. Rep. 699 (1894), innkeeper. Texas.-Gulf, T., S. F. Ry. Co. v. Coopwood (Tex. Civ. App.), 96 S. W. 102 (1906). even drunken persons cannot be ejected where it would apparently not be safe to do so. The difference between general undertaking and special undertaking may again be emphasized in these cases. A common carrier by his general profession must take women and cripples, although the care he must take of them will be greater than usual. Without special undertaking a carrier need not accept sick persons or intoxicated persons as passengers, but if he does so he must give them the special care which he is held to become bound to give them by voluntarily taking them in charge. § 934. Disposition of dangerous persons. Insane passengers must be so restrained that they will not injure others, if such injury is to be reasonably anticiS. W. 1051, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 2341, 56 L. R. A. 580 (1902). 1 Alabama.-Johnson v. Louisville & N. R. R. Co., 104 Ala. 241, 16 So. 75, 53 Am. St. Rep. 39 (1893). Arkansas.-Price v. St. Louis, I. M. & So. Ry. Co., 75 Ark. 479, 88 S. W. 575, 112 Am. St. Rep. 79 (1905). District of Columbia.-Converse v. Washington & G. R. R. Co., 2 MacAr. 504 (1876). Georgia.-Peavy v. Georgia R. R. & Banking Co., 81 Ga. 485, 8 S. E. 70, 12 Am. St. Rep. 334 (1888). Illinois.-Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Pelletier, 134 Ill. 120, 24 N. E. 770 (1890). Indiana. Cincinnati, I., St. L. & C. R. R. Co. v. Cooper, 120 Ind. 469, 22 N. E. 340, 16 Am. St. Rep. 334, 6 L. R. A. 241 (1889). Kansas. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R. Co. v. Weber, 33 Kan. 543, 6 Pac. 877, 52 Am. Rep. 543 (1885). Kentucky.-Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Saulsberry, 112 Ky. 915, 66 Maine.-Robinson v. Rockland, T. & C. St. Ry. Co., 87 Me. 387, 32 Atl. 994, 29 L. R. A. 530 (1895). Massachusetts.-Hudson v. Lynn & Boston R. R. Co., 178 Mass. 64, 59 N. E. 647 (1901). Michigan.-Strand v. Chicago & W. Ry. Co., 67 Mich. 380, 34 N. W. 712 (1887). Missouri.-Eads v. Metropolitan Ry. Co., 43 Mo. App. 536 (1891). New Hampshire.-Edgerly v. Union St. Ry. Co., 67 N. H. 312, 36 Atl. 558 (1892). New York.-People v. Caryl, 3 Park Cr. 326 (1857). Texas.-Paris & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Robinson (Tex. Civ. App.), 114 S. W. 658 (1908). West Virginia.-Fisher v. West ! pated. And if a case of contagious disease is discovered, precautions for safe keeping of other passengers may be taken. But the carrier is as before only bound to use due diligence. Moreover, it is the duty of the carrier to use the utmost care to protect passengers from the violence of other passengers who are intoxicated or disorderly.3 But even in ejecting such undesirable passengers, due care must be taken to avoid injuring them, and if they are unable to take care of themselves, they must be set down in a reasonably safe place, or else the company may be liable. Topic B. Liability for Injuries Caused by Its Own Servants § 935. Duty to protect passenger. The clearest examples of the duty to protect are the cases holding the railroads liable for assault upon passengers by its employés. The stringent general rule is well established that the company is responsible for such assaults on passengers while the employés are on duty, 4 United States.-Meyer V. St. Kentucky.-Louisville & N. R. See generally, § 639, supra. 1 Alabama.-Pullman P. C. Co. Wisconsin.-Walsh v. Chicago See generally, § 631, supra. Minnesota.-Lucy v. Chicago Gt. Tennessee.-West Memphis Pack et Co. v. White, 99 Tenn. 256, 41 Kansas. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Weber, 33 Kan. 543, 6 Pac. 877, 52 Am. Rep. 543 (1885). Massachusetts.-Hudson v. Lynn & B. R. R. Co., 178 Mass. 64, 59 N. E. 647 (1901). See generally, § 632, supra. United States.-Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Prentice, 147 U. S. 101, 37 L. ed. 97, 13 Sup. Ct. 261 (1893). Alabama.-Birmingham Ry. & E. Co. v. Baird, 130 Ala. 334, 30 So. 456, 54 L. R. A. 752, 89 Am. St. Rep. 43 (1900). |