Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

Sec. 989. Same subject-Duty of carrier to protect passenger while in station or depot. The authority of carriers of passengers to make and enforce such reasonable regulations as are necessary to protect from annoyance, insult or injury those who are invited to their depots or stations to become passengers, cannot be questioned. And the wilful or negli gent failure to make and enforce such reasonable regulations will render them liable in damages for any injuries directly resulting to persons who repair there for the purpose of becoming passengers. But since such carriers are required to exercise only ordinary care to protect their passengers, or those intending to become such, from the turbulent or disorderly conduct of persons in their depots, it must appear, in order to establish a liability against a carrier where an injury has arisen from such a source, that the agent in charge of the station knew, or had opportunity to know, that the injury was threatened, and that by prompt intervention he could have prevented or mitigated it.17 If, however, an agent in charge

17. Railway Co. v. Wilson, 70 Ark. 136, 66 S. W. Rep. 661, 91 Am. St. Rep. 74; Railroad Co. v. Laloge, 24 Ky. L. R. 693, 696, 69 S. W. Rep. 795, 62 L. R. A. 405; Prokop v. Railway Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 S. W. Rep. 101 (female passenger assaulted by negro while waiting in depot for train which was two hours late).

Notice to an employe whose only duties are to clean up the waiting room and keep up fires, but who is charged with no duty of looking after passengers, is insufficient to bind the carrier. Tate v. Railroad Co., 26 Ky. L. R. 309, 81 S. W. Rep. 256.

A station master ought to do whatever he reasonably can for the purposes of justice when informed that a robbery, or other crime, has been committed in one

of the company's carriages; and a contrary course of conduct would be highly censurable if no reasonable explanation of it could be given. But it is no breach of the duty owed by the company to a passenger to start the train at the time appointed without waiting till the passenger can give the men whom he charges with robbery into custody, and have them searched. Starting a train in the ordinary course is not opposing an obstacle to the recovery of the passenger's property of such a kind as to make the company responsible in the same way as if its negligence had caused or contributed to the robbery. Cobb v. Railway Co., L. R. (1894) App. Cas. 419, 63 L. J. Q. B. 629, affirming (1893) 1 Q. B. 459, 62 L. J. Q. B. 335.

of the station stands by, and allows a passenger, or one intending to become such, to be insulted or injured without any attempt on his part to prevent the wrongful act, the carrier will certainly be liable.18 So if he fails to guard against the long continued and notorious acts of third persons, such as scuffling in the passageways by cabmen, and a passenger is thereby injured, the carrier must respond in damages.19

Sec. 990. (§ 553.) Difference between passenger and stranger or trespasser as to degree of care and diligence to be used. -The carrier is not under the same degree of obligation as to care and diligence to guard against injuries to strangers as he is in case of those against passengers. His duty to the former is governed by the general principle of law that every one is obliged, upon considerations of humanity and justice, to conform his conduct to the rights of others, and in the prosecution of his lawful business to use every reasonable precaution to avoid their injury.20 But to his passengers is due that ut

18. Buck v. Railway Co., 15 Daly, 550; Seawell v. Railroad Co., 132 N. C. 856, 44 S. E. Rep. 610, 45 S. E. Rep. 850 (carrier held liable where plaintiff was pelted with eggs, the station agent making no effort to prevent the assault); Penny v. Railroad Co., 133 N. C. 221, 45 S. E. Rep. 563, 63 L. R. A. 497 (carrier held liable where persons were engaged in altercation with pistols near the car steps, and plaintiff was shot while alighting, carrier's servants having given no warning of danger); Railway Co. v. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 S. W. Rep. 124 (carrier held liable for station agent's failure to stop the use of insulting language to a lady in his presence); Railway Co. V. Phillio, 96 Tex. 18, 69 S. W. Rep. 994, 97 Am. St. Rep. 868, 59 L. R. A 392, reversing (Tex. Civ. App.)

67 S. W. Rep. 915 (carrier held liable for failure of station agent to restrain drunken man who flourished a knife and sang vulgar songs in his presence); Railway Co. v. Dick, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 256, 63 S. W. Rep. 895 (carrier held liable for assault on plaintiff where station agent knew of such assault).

J.

19. Exton v. Railroad Co., 62 N. Law, 7, 42 Atl. Rep. 486, 56 L. R. A. 508; s. c. 63 N. J. Law, 356, 46 Atl. Rep. 1099.

20. "A common carrier of passengers is not under the same obligation as to care and diligence in guarding against injuries to strangers, and especially to trespassers, that it is in guarding against injuries to passengers. His duty to the latter involves the use of the utmost care and diligence which can be bestowed by human

most care and diligence which can be bestowed by human skill and foresight, and consequently that which would be cul

skill and foresight, and is enforced by the highest considerations of public policy. But as to the former, his duty rests merely upon grounds of general humanity and respect for the rights of others, and requires him to so perform the transportation service as not wantonly or carelessly to be an aggressor towards third persons, whether such persons are on or off the vehicle." Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Mehlsack, 131 Ill. 61.

See, also, Singleton v. Felton, 101 Fed. 526, 42 C. C. A. 57; Railway Co. v. Shaw, 86 Fed. 865, 31 C. C. A. 70; Tully v. Railroad Co., 3 Pennewill (Del.), 455, 50 Atl. Rep. 95; Railroad Co. v. Leiner, 202 Ill. 624, 67 N. E. Rep. 398, 95 Am. St. Rep. 266, affirming 103 Ill. App. 438; Railroad Co. v. Kingsley, 177 Ill. 558, 52 N. E. Rep. 931, reversing 78 Ill. App. 236; Barkley v. Railway Co., 37 Ill. App. 293; Railroad Co. v. Reagan, 52 Ill. App. 488; Railroad Co. v. Redding, 140 Ind. 101, 39 N. E. 921, 34 L. R. A. 767; Railroad Co. v. Norris, 17 Ind. App. 189, 46 N. E. Rep. 554, 60 Am. St. Rep. 166; Railroad Co. v. Matthews, 13 Ind. App. 355, 41 N. E. Rep. 842; Mendenhall v. Railway Co., 66 Kan. 438, 71 Pac. Rep. 846, 61 L. R. A. 120, 97 Am. St. Rep. 380; Handley v. Railway Co., 61 Kan. 237, 59 Pac. Rep. 271; Railway Co. v. Mitchell, 56 Kan. 324, 43 Pac. Rep. 244; Railway Co. v. Sanford, 45 Kan. 372, 25 Pac. Rep. 891, 11 L. R. A. 432; Railroad Co. v. Gatewood, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 108; Railroad Co. v. Moss, 13 Ky. L. Rep. 684; Dalton's Adm'r

v. Railroad Co., 22 Ky. L. R. 97,
56 S. W. Rep. 657; Railroad Co.
v McManus' Adm'x, 24 Ky. L. Rep.
81, 67 S. W. Rep. 1000; Railroad
Co. v. Jackson, 22 Ky. L. Rep.
630, 58 S. W. Rep. 526; Railroad
Co. v. Kennery's Adm'r, 23 Ky.
L. Rep. 1734, 66 S. W. Rep. 20;
Fagg's Adm'r v. Railroad Co., 23
Ky. L. Rep. 383, 63 S. W. Rep.
580; Leonard v. Railroad Co., 170
Mass. 318, 49 N. E. Rep. 621; Planz
v. Railroad Co., 157 Mass. 377, 32
N. E. Rep. 356, 17 L. R. A. 835;
Railroad Co. v. Burnsed, 70 Miss.
437, 12 So. Rep. 958, 35 Am. St.
Rep. 656; Krueger v. Railway Co.,
84 Mo. App. 358; Choate v. Rail-
way Co., 67 Mo. App. 105; Merrie-
lees v. Railroad Co., 163 Mo. 470,
63 S. W. Rep. 718; Welsh v. Rail-
road Co., 62 N. J. Law, 655, 42 Atl.
Rep. 736; Barrett v. Railroad Co.,
61 N. Y. Supp. 9, 45 App. Div. 225;
s. c. 157 N. Y. 663, 52 N. E. Rep.
659, reversing 36 N. Y. Supp. 1121,
92 Hun, 606; Murphy v. Railroad
Co., 92 N. Y. Supp. 192; Enright
1. Railroad Co., 198 Pa. St. 166,
47 Atl. Rep. 938, 82 Am. St. Rep.
795, 53 L. R. A. 330; Elkins v.
Railroad Co., 64 S. Car. 553, 43 S.
E. Rep. 19; Railroad Co. v. Hew-
itt, 67 Tex. 479; Blake v. Railway
Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 85 S. W. Rep.
430; Railroad Co. v. Grigsby, 13
Tex. Civ. App. 639, 35 S. W. Rep.
815, 36 S. W. Rep. 496; Claiborne
v. Railway Co., 21 Tex. Civ. App.
648, 57 S. W. Rep. 336; Craw-
leigh v. Railway Co., 28 Tex. Civ.
App. 260, 67 S. W. Rep. 140;
Krantz v. Railway Co., 12 Utah,
104, 41 Pac. Rep. 717, 30 L. R. A.

pable negligence in the case of the passenger would not be necessarily so in the case of one to whom the carrier was under no such peculiar obligation.21 It therefore becomes im

portant in many cases, where injuries have been sustained by others from the improper or negligent management of his business by the carrier or his agents, to determine whether, at the time of such injury, the injured person stood in the rela

[ocr errors]

297; Stone v. Railway Co., 88 Wis.
98, 59 N. W. Rep. 457; Bolin v.
Railway Co., 108 Wis. 333, 84 N.
W. Rep. 446, 81 Am. St. Rep. 911;
Pledger v. Railroad Co., Neb.
95 N. W. Rep. 1057; Graham
v. Railway Co.,
Iowa,
107 N. W. Rep. 595. (No duty
owed a trespasser unless his posi-
tion of danger is known to opera-
tives of train, and then only to
use reasonable care.)

On the authority of a railroad conductor to eject trespassers, see Sanders v. Railroad Co., 90 Ill. App. 582; Young v. Railway Co., 51 La. Ann. 295, 25 So. Rep. 69; Rowell v. Railroad Co., 68 N. H. 358, 44 Atl. Rep. 488; Railroad Co. v. Anderson, 82 Tex. 516, 17 S. W. Rep. 1039, 27 Am. St. Rep. 902; Railroad Co. v. Bender, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 133, 57 S. W. Rep. 574.

Johnson v. Railway Co., 116 Iowa, 639, 88 N. W. Rep. 811; O'Banion v. Railway Co., 65 Kan. 352, 69 Pac. Rep. 353; Elliott v. Railroad Co., 21 Ky. L. Rep. 630, 52 S. W. Rep. 833; Smith v. Railroad Co., 95 Ky. 11, 23 S. W. Rep. 652, 22 L. R. A. 72; Dorsey v. Railway Co., 104 La. 478, 29 So. Rep. 177, 52 L. R. A. 92; McKeon v. Railroad Co., 183 Mass. 271, 97 Am. St. Rep. 437, 67 N. E. Rep. 329; Hartigan v. Railroad Co., 113 Mich. 122, 71 N. W. Rep. 452; Randall v. Railway Co., 113 Mich. 115, 71 N. W. Rep. 450, 38 L. R. A. 666; Railroad Co. v. West, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 387, 60 S. W. Rep. 290; Brevig v. Railway Co., 64 Minn. 168, 66 N. W. 401, 404; Krueger v. Railway Co., 84 Mo. App. 358; Brennan, Santa Fe Receivers, 72 Mo. App. 107; Farber v. Railway Co., 139 Mo. 272, 40 S. W. Rep. 932; Railroad Co. v. Welsh, 62 N. J. L. 655, 72 Am. St. Rep. 659, 42 Atl. Rep. 736; Railway Co. 1. Black, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 119, 57 S. W. Rep. 330; Railway Co. v. Lester, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 467, 59 S. W. Rep. 946; Railway Co. v. Rutherford, 94 Tex. 518, 62 S. W. Rep. 1056, 62 S. W. Rep. 1069; Cook v. Railway Co., 128 N. C. 333, 38 S. E. Rep. 925.

There is a sharp division of opinion on the question whether a brakeman has implied authority to eject trespassers. Some courts hold that he has, others that he has not. The two lines of cases are irreconcilable. For the varying views in the different states, see Railway Co. v. Godkin, 104 Ga. 655, 30 S. E. Rep. 378, 69 Am. St. Rep. 187; Railroad Co. V. Brackman, 78 Ill. App. 141; Railroad Co. v. King, 179 Ill. 91, 53 21. Brand v. Railroad Co., 8 N. E. Rep. 552, 70 Am. St. Rep. Barb. 368; Virginia, etc., R. Co. 93, affirming 77 Ill. App. 581; v. Sanger, 15 Gratt. 230.

tion of passenger or of stranger to him, and upon the determination of this question his liability may frequently depend.

Sec. 991. (§ 553a.) Same subject-Duty to persons coming to stations to assist passengers.-A person who comes to a railroad station to assist passengers in entering or leaving the train, though not a passenger, is not a trespasser, as he comes with at least the tacit invitation of the carrier.22 While so engaged, he does not stand in the relation to the carrier of a bare licensee, but is deemed to have been invited to be there by virtue of the relation existing between the carrier and the intending or arriving passenger. The carrier, therefore, owes to him the duty of exercising at least ordinary care to see that

22. McKone v. Railroad Co., 51 Mich. 601; Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co. v. Martin, 41 Mich. 667; Doss v. Railroad Co., 59 Mo. 27; Griswold v. Railroad Co., 64 Wis. 652; Central, etc., R. Co. v. Letcher, 69 Ala. 106; Holmes v. Railway Co., L. R. 4 Exch. 254; Tobin v. Railroad Co., 59 Me. 183; Gillis v. Railroad Co., 59 Penn. St. 129; Railway Co. v. Owens, 123 Ga. 393, 51 S. E. Rep. 404; Berry v. Railroad Co., 22 Ky. L. R. 1410, 60 S. W. Rep. 699; Railway Co. v. Lawton, 55 Ark. 428, 18 S. W. Rep. 543, 15 L. R. A. 434, 29 Am. St. Rep. 48; Klugherz v. Railway Co., 90 Minn. 17, 95 N. W. Rep. 586, 101 Am. St. Rep. 384; Whitley v. Railway Co., 122 N. Car. 987, 29 S. E. Rep. 783; Morrow v. Railway Co., 134 N. Car. 92, 46 S. E. Rep. 12; Cherokee Packet Co. v. Hilson, 95 Tenn. 1, 31 S. W. Rep. 737; Dowd v. Railway Co., 84 Wis. 105, 54 N. W. Rep. 24, 20 L. R. A. 527, 36 Am. St. Rep. 917.

In Railway Co. v. Bruyere, 114 Fed. 540, 51 C. C. A. 574, plaintiff went to the station to meet his wife who was expected to re

turn on defendant's freight train.
Before the train arrived, he heard
that it had been taken possession
When
of by a crowd of rioters.
the train arrived at the station,
excitement ensued
considerable
which attended the arrest of the
He did not see his wife
rioters.
and boarded the caboose with a
view to obtaining information
concerning his wife. The conduc-
tor was not in the caboose, and as
return
he supposed he would
shortly, plaintiff awaited his re-
turn. The train started up and`
plaintiff supposed it was going to
the coal shed to coal up, but it
did not stop there and continued
to increase in speed. The conduc-
tor then came along and insisted
on him getting off the train or
paying his fare, but refused to
stop the train to allow him to get
off.

Plaintiff stepped outside the door to the rear platform, whereupon the conductor followed him and immediately closed the door and fastened it. Plaintiff attempted to re-enter, but could not, and was thrown from the train by the lurching of the caboose.

The ac

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »