Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

reasonably have been foreseen by him and provided against. Thus where a passenger took a wringer with him into a railroad car and placed it in a parcel rack over the seat, from which it fell and injured another passenger, it was held that the railroad company was not liable unless it had failed to use reasonable care.1 And where a passenger is injured by stumbling over a basket or valise which another passenger has placed in the aisle of the vehicle, the carrier will not be liable for the injury unless he omitted to exercise reasonable care in keeping the aisle clear.

Sec. 921. Same subject-Dangerous articles. If a dangerous article be brought by a passenger into the carrier's vehicle, the carrier will not be liable if injury is thereby occasioned another passenger unless it can be shown that the carrier had knowledge of its presence in the vehicle and failed to exercise due care and caution to avert the injury. And although the carrier may have knowledge that a certain article. has been taken into the vehicle by a passenger, he cannot be held responsible for an injury suffered by another passenger in consequence of its dangerous character unless the article was so apparently dangerous as to reasonably inform him of its real character.8 But if the article exhibits such signs of its real character as ought reasonably to inform the carrier that it will be likely to cause injury to passengers, and he nevertheless permits it to be taken into the vehicle, he will be charged with such knowledge of the probable consequence likely to follow from its presence in the vehicle as will make him responsible

4. Morris v. The Railroad, 106 N. Y. 678; Whiting v. The Railroad, 89 N. Y. Supp. 584, 97 App. Div. 11.

clear of valises is one for the jury. Railroad Co. v. Buckmaster, 74 Ill. App. 575.

7. See Railway Co. v. Long, 13

5. Van Winkle v. The Railroad, Tex. Civ. App. 664, 36 S. W. Rep. 40 Hun, 564.

6. Stinson v. The Railway Co., 75 Wis. 381.

The question whether the carrier has used reasonable care in keeping the aisle of its vehicle

485.

8. Clark's Adm'x v. The Rallroad, 101 Ky. 34, 39 S. W. Rep. 840, 36 L. R. A. 123, 49 S. W. Rep. 1120; Railway Co. v. Shields, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 652, 28 W. Rep.

if a passenger is thereby injured. The carrier would not, however, if the article were not apparently dangerous, be under any duty to examine or inspect it for the purpose of ascer taining its real character, and unless it could be shown that he was actually informed that it was dangerous, he would not be liable for an injury resulting from its presence in the vehicle.10

Sec. 922. Duty of carrier to supply vehicle with necessary service and accommodations.-It is the duty of the carrier not only to furnish vehicles which are as safe for their intended. purpose as human skill and foresight can reasonably make them, but to supply them with such accommodations as are reasonably necessary for the welfare and comfort of his pas sengers. This duty would undoubtedly include the supplying them with an adequate corps of servants;11 with suitable re

709; s. C. 29 S. W. Rep. 652; Railway Co. v. Kalidas Mukerjee, (1901) A. C. 396, 70 L. J. P. C. 63, 84 Law T. 210.

9. In the case of Railway Co. v. Kalidas Mukerjee, supra, it appeared that a passenger brought a package of fireworks with him into the smoking car. While in the car the fireworks exploded, causing injury to other passengers. It was held that the carrier was not liable for the injuries unless the package exhibited such signs of its real character as ought to have called the attention of the carrier's servants to it; that if it exhibited such signs, the carrier would be charged with actual knowledge of its contents.

A street car company has no right to carry dogs upon a coach set apart for passengers, and it will be liable if an injury is thereby caused a passenger. Westcott v. Railway Co., Wash.

84 Pac. Rep. 588. 10. Railway Co. v. supra.

Shields

Where a passenger brought with him into the carrier's vehicle a can containing gasoline, and the gasoline took fire from a match which had been thrown upon the can, causing injury to another passenger, it was held that the carrier could be held responsible only where the servants in charge of the train knew of the danger and failed to take all reasonable precautions to avert the injury; that even if aware of the pres ence of the can in the vehicle, they were not required in the exercise of reasonable care and vigilance to investigate its contents, and that not knowing what the can contained, the carrier was not liable. Clark's Admx. v. The Railroad, supra.

11. The carrier must provide such servants for the management of his vehicles, and make such reasonable arrangements therefor, as the highest care of a prudent man would suggest as necessary to a safe passage. Murray v. The Rail

tiring places;12 with seats if a day coach; with proper berths if a sleeping-car; with lights at night, and the like. And if the weather is cold, it is his duty to supply his vehicles with sufficient warmth, and for any neglect of such duty whereby a passenger suffers injury, he will be liable.13

road, 66 Conn. 512, 34 Atl. Rep. 506, 32 L. R. A. 539.

In Western, etc., R. Co. v. Stanley, 61 Md. 266, a passenger train was going through a tunnel. The door of the car was open and smoke and cinders blew in. There was no servant of the company present to close the door or look after the comfort of the passen. gers. A passenger went to shut the door and in doing so was injured. The company was held liable.

12. See as to this, Wood v. Railroad Co., 84 Ga. 363, 10 S. E. Rep. 967, where a passenger finding the water-closet locked, got off the car in the night-time without warning, and fell through a bridge on which the train was stopped.

The carrier, however, will not be liable to a passenger for failure to provide a coach with a water closet where the passenger has sustained no injury thereby. Henderson v. The Railway (Tex. Civ. App.), 42 S. W. Rep. 1030.

It is the duty of a railroad company to provide its coaches with drinking water. Hunter v. Railroad Co., S. Car. 51 S. E. Rep. 860.

v. Duck, 6 Tex. Ct. Rep. 903, 72 S. W. Rep. 445; s. c. 2 Tex. Ct. Rep. 1042, 63 S. W. Rep. 891; Arrington v. The Railway, 6 Tex. Ct. Rep. 69, 70 S. W. Rep. 551; Railway Co. v. Campbell, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 35, 69 S. W. Rep. 451; Railway Co. v. Davis, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 340, 43 S. W. Rep. 540, citing Hutchinson on Carr.; Railway Co. v. Hyatt, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 435, 34 S. W. Rep. 677, citing Hutchinson on Carr.; Missouri, etc., Ry. Co. v. Byrd (Tex. Civ. App.), 89 S. W. Rep. 991; St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. r. Haney (Tex. Civ. App.), 94 S. W. Rep. 386.

In keeping his coaches heated in cold weather, the carrier is bound to exercise that high degree of care and diligence which would be used by very cautious, prudent and competent persons under like circumstances. Tyler v. The Railway (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 S. W. Rep. 1075.

In The Railway Co. v. Harrison, 97 Tex. 611, 80 S. W. Rep. 1139, reversing, s. c. (Tex. Civ. App.), 77 S. W. Rep. 1036, it appeared that a carrier of passenders undertook to carry a passenger over its own and another road in a car furnished by itself. The contract provided that the first carrier would not be liable for the negligence of any connecting carrier. While the car was passing over the road of a connecting carrier,

13. Hastings v. The Railroad, 53 Fed. 224; Taylor v. The Railroad (Mo.), 38 S. W. Rep. 304, citing Hutchinson on Carr.; Railway Co. V. Harrison, 97 Tex. 611, 80 S. W. Rep. 1139; Railway Co. the passenger suffered injury by

Where, however, the carrier undertakes to carry passengers by freight train, he is not required to furnish the same conveniences that he is bound to provide on trains devoted exclusively to the carriage of passengers, and he cannot, therefore, be held liable for a failure to furnish a suitable retiring place in the caboose.14

Sec. 923. Duty in respect of management and running of trains and vehicles. Having provided suitable vehicles and proper accommodations, it is the duty of the carrier to exercise the highest degree of care and diligence in so managing, operating and running his trains and vehicles that all injuries to passengers, which human foresight can avert, may be prevented, and for a failure so to do, whereby a passenger suffers injury, the carrier will be liable in damages.15 Thus, if the servants in charge of a passenger train carelessly stop the train in such a position that it is struck by another train,16 or if they fail to properly secure a car on a side track, and the car runs upon the main track and collides with a passenger train,17 or if a rapidly moving freight train which makes no stops. is permitted to follow closely behind a slowly moving passenger train which makes many stops, and the two trains collide,18 or if a freight car is sent violently against a passenger

reason of the car not being suf-
ficiently heated. It was held that
the first carrier would be liable
for its failure in the first instance
to furnish a car which was capa-
ble of being made comfortably
warm; but that if the car was suf-
ficient for the purpose, and the in-
jury was occasioned by the negli-
gence of the servants of the con-
necting roads, the first carrier
would not be liable. To same ef-
fect, see Missouri, etc., Ry. Co. v.
Foster, 97 Tex. 618, 619, 80 S. W.
Rep. 1197, reversing S. C. (Tex.
Civ. App.), 78 S. W. Rep. 1134.
14. Rodgers v. Railroad Co.,
Ark.

89 S. W. Rep. 468, 1 L.

R. A. (N. S.), 1145, citing Hutch. on Carr.

15. White r. Railroad Co., 136 Mass. 321; McElroy v. Railroad Co., 4 Cush. 400; Warren v. Railroad Co., 8 Allen, 227; Eaton v. Railroad Co., 11 Allen, 500, and cases cited in the following notes.

16. Farlow v. Kelly, 108 U. S 288; Kellow v. Railway Co., 68 Iowa, 470.

17. Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Harris, 158 U. S. 326, 15 Sup. Ct R. 843, 39 L. Ed. 1003.

18. Railroad Co. v. Richmond, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 2394, 67 S. W. Rep. 25. Where a statute provides that in making up a passenger train

car,19 or if the engineer of a passenger train carelessly runs his train across the track of another company, without first stopping as required by statute, and a collision ensues,20 or if the servants in charge of a train negligently leave a wounded animal so near the track that it collides with another train,21 the railroad company will be liable if a passenger is thereby injured. So if the servants in charge of a ferry boat negligently permit the boat to come with such force against a dock that a passenger is thrown to the deck and injured, the proprietors of the ferry-boat will be liable.22

And if by the use of proper signals, a collision between two railroad trains could have been avoided, the railroad company would be guilty of negligence for failing to give such signals. Thus if a railroad company provides a station-master and a conductor with similar uniforms and lanterns and gives them similar signals having different meanings, and the engineer on a passenger train is thereby misguided and a collision ensues, 23 or if the servants in charge of a passenger train, in stopping the train at a station, carelessly permit the rear part of the train to remain standing across the track of another

Pac. Rep. 31.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

19. Railroad Co. v. Means, 136 Fed. 83, 68 C. C. A. 65.

no baggage, freight, merchandise v. Holloway,
or lumber cars shall be placed in
the rear of passenger cars, and a
passenger is injured in an acci-
dent on a train which is made up
in a manner contrary to the stat-
ute, the railroad company will be
liable. Railway Co. v. Smith, 70
Ark. 179, 67 S. W. Rep. 865.

Whether the operation of a train with the locomotive in the rear at a place where the train is likely to collide with horses, is negligence, is a question of fact for the jury. Railroad Co. v. Grimm, 25 Ind. App. 494, 57 N. E. Rep. 640. The running of a freight train on a track between a station and a passenger train during the time the latter train stops at the station is negligence. Atchison, etc., Ry. Co.

20. Railroad Co. v. Greenwood, 99 Ala. 501, 14 So. Rep. 495.

21. Railway Co. v. Lauricella (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. Rep. 301; s. c. 87 Tex. 277, 28 S. W. Rep. 277, 47 Am. St. Rep. 103.

22. Snelling v. Ferry Co., 13 N. Y. Supp. 398; Cash v. The Railroad, 67 N. Y. Supp. 823. 23. Railroad Co. v. Sanders, 98 Ala. 293, 13 So. Rep. 57.

A railroad company, if it undertakes to manage and conduct the business of running its trains by telegraph, is bound to have a proper and fit telegraph line for the purpose, with a reasonable

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »