such modification, the carrier is still bound to exercise the highest degree of care of which human foresight is capable.32

Sec. 1004. Same subject-Person riding on "employe's pass."-There are many authorities holding that an employe of a carrier of passengers, traveling free as a part of his contract of service to and from his work, is not a passenger but an employe and a fellow servant with those in charge of the carrier's vehicle.33 But where an employe is traveling on his own private business, when his time is his own, even though he travels on a pass or ticket received on account of his employment but at which time he is not on his way to or from such employment, or where he is permitted to travel without a pass or ticket by reason of his employment, as where there is a rule

junctions of the roads, which delays are indicated upon the scheduled time tables of the railroad company, and such delays can form no ground for a charge of negligence. Burns v. Railway Co., 104 Wis. 646, 80 N. W. Rep. 927.

32. Railroad Co. v. Crow, 54 Neb. 747, 74 N. W. Rep. 1066, 69 Am. St. Rep. 741; Lake Shore, etc. R'y Co. v. Teeters, Ind.

—, 77 N. E. Rep. 599. Where a trainman in authority tells a shipper of live stock, who is traveling with the stock for the purpose of rendering it care, that the train will remain standing for some time at a certain point, and directs him to look after the stock at such time, he may rely on it that the train will not be moved without notice to him, as it is customary for shippers to assume dangerous positions when caring for the stock. Railway Co. v. Jahn, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 74, 43 S. W. Rep. 575.

When a shipper of live stock is directed to pass over a certain

path by the carrier's servants, in order to reach a connecting train, it is the duty of the carrier to see that the pathway is safe and not made dangerous by the operation of its trains and engines while the shipper is upon it. Railroad Co. v. Troyer, Neb.

97 N. W. Rep. 308. 33. Gillshannon v. Railroad Co., 10 Cush. 228; Seaver v. Railroad Co., 14 Gray, 466; Gilman v. Railroad Co., 10 Allen, 233, 87 Am. Dec. 635; Higgins v. Railroad Co., 36 Mo. 418; Vick v. Railroad Co., 95 N. Y. 267, 47 Am. Rep. 36; Ryan v. Railroad Co., 23 Pa. 384; McNulty v. Railroad Co., 182 Pa. 479, 38 Atl. Rep. 524, 38 L. R. A. 376, 61 Am. St. Rep. 721; Wright v. Railroad Co., 122 N. Car. 852, 29 S. E. Rep. 100; Ionnone v. Railroad Co., 21 R. I. 452, 44 Atl. Rep. 592; 46 L. R. A. 730; Travelers Ins. Co. v. Austin, 116 Ga. 266, 42 S. E. Rep. 522, 59 L. R. A. 107 (paymaster not a passenger).

that all employees may ride free while in uniform, whether they are going to or from their employment or not, he is a passenger and not a servant when riding upon the cars provided for the reception of passengers.34

Sec. 1005. (§ 556.) Same subject-May become passenger before entering vehicle-Effect of signal to stop. But a person may become a passenger, without having come into the carrier's vehicle, if the surrounding circumstances show an intent on his part to become a passenger and an acceptance of him by the carrier as a passenger.35 Thus, in Brien v. Bennett36 it appeared that the defendant's omnibus was passing

on its journey when the plaintiff held up his finger to cause the driver to stop and take him up, and that upon his doing so, the driver pulled up and the conductor opened the omnibus door; and that just as the plaintiff was putting his foot on the step of the omnibus, the driver, supposing that he had got into the omnibus, drove on, and the plaintiff was much hurt by falling on his face. Upon this state of facts, it was contended by the defendant that the plaintiff had never become a passenger. But it was answered by the court, that the stopping of the omnibus implied a consent to take the plaintiff as a passenger; and, upon this evidence, the case was submitted to the jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff.

On the other hand, if the circumstances do not show an express or implied invitation of the carrier to a person to become a passenger, the carrier cannot be held liable if he is injured while attempting to board the carrier's vehicle.37

Sec. 1006. Same subject-Person waiting to take train entitled to protection-Person pursuing departing train-Spectators. The general rule is that where a person, with the bona fide intention of taking passage upon a train, goes to the station within a reasonable time prior to the hour of departure of the train, and there, either by the purchase of a ticket or in some other manner, indicates to the carrier his intention to take passage, from that time on, while waiting for the train, he is entitled to all the rights and privileges of a passenger.38

37. Railway Co. v. Robinson, 68 Miss. 643, 10 So. Rep. 60; Creech v. Railway Co., 66 S. C. 528, 45 S. E. Rep. 86.

Merely going on board to inspect a vessel, or to select and reserve a berth, is not any part of a journey, nor the beginning of the relation of carrier and passenger. The Bella, 91 Fed. 540; The Eugene, 87 Fed. 1001, 31 C. C. A. 345, affirming 83 Fed. 222. 38. Exton v. Railroad Co., 62 N. J. Law 7, 42 Atl. Rep. 486, 56 L.

R. A. 508; s. c. affirmed in 63 N.
J. Law 356, 46 Atl. Rep. 1099; Chi-
cago, etc. R. Co. v. Young, 118 Ill.
App. 226; MacFeat v. Railroad
Co.,
Del.
62 Atl. Rep.
898. See, also, Railroad Co. t.
Hagblad,
Neb.
101 N.
W. 1033; s. c. 106 N. W. Rep.
1041.

Where the person who held a round trip ticket came to the depot with the return coupon for the purpose of making the return trip, it was held that such

So where a person, having gone to the depot or station where passengers were received upon the trains of a railway company, had there purchased her ticket at the office provided for the purpose, it was held that in passing from the office to the train, under the direction of the station agent, over premises belonging to the company and connected with the road as a part of its station grounds, she was to be considered as a passenger, and that the company was bound to use the utmost care in providing for her a safe passage and in preventing injury to her from its passing trains.39 But though a person who has gone to the station and purchased a ticket and is waiting to take the train may be entitled to protection as a passenger, yet if he wilfully waits until the train has started and then runs after it to overtake it, he cannot while so pursuing the train be deemed to be a passenger or entitled to protection as such.40 So where one going to take a train arrives at the station after the last train has gone, and remains. thereafter for his own convenience, during which time the station-master puts out the lights at the usual time for closing, he is thereafter a mere licensee and not a passenger, and cannot recover for injuries sustained in leaving the station caused by the extinguishment of the lights.41 So, obviously, a person is not a passenger who is merely on his way to the station to take a train,42 unless he is being carried to the station in the person was a passenger. Chicago, etc. R. Co. v Walker, 217 Ill. 605, 75 N. E. Rep. 520. But to go to the station three hours before train time is unreasonable. Railroad Co. v. Laloge, 24 Ky. Law R. 693, 696, 69 S. W. Rep. 795, 62 L. R. A. 405.

39. Warren . The Railroad, 8 Allen, 227, Poucher . The Railroad, 49 N. Y. 263; Young r. The Railroad, 171 Mass. 33, 50 N. E. Rep. 455, 41 L. R. A. 193.

But see Archer v. Railroad Co., 110 Mo. App. 349, 85 S. W. Rep. 934.

40. Central R. Co. v. Perry, 58 Ga. 461, Perry r. Railroad Co., 66 Ca. 761; see also, Spannagle v. Railroad Co., 31 Ill. App. 460.

41. Heinlein v. Railroad Co., 147 Mass. 136.

42. June 1. Railroad Co., 153 Mass. 79, 26 N. E. Rep. 238; Webster ľ. Railroad Co., 161 Mass. 298, 37 N. E. 165, 24 L. R. A. 521; Railroad Co. v. Smith, 86 Fed. 292, 30 C. C. A. 58, 40 L. R. A. 746; Railroad Co. r. Jennings, 190 Ill. 478, 60 N. E. Rep. 818, 54 L. R. A. 827, reversing 89 Ill. App. 335; Railway Co. Weeks, 99 Ill.

carrier's vehicle.43 A fortiori, one who goes to a station merely as a spectator is not a passenger nor entitled to protection as such.44

Sec. 1007. (§ 557a.) Same subject-May be passenger though received in vehicle before ready to start. So where a railroad company, by the invitation of its agent, receives a person as a passenger in its car before the train is made up or is ready to start, it must protect such person as a passenger, and must couple, manage and control its cars and engines in such a manner as not through negligence to injure him.45

Sec. 1008. (§ 558.) Same subject-Prepayment of fare not necessary.-And it has been held that, even without the payment of the fare or the purchase of a ticket, if the person desiring to be carried has gone to the station of the company, and has there announced her intention to go upon the train to the officers of the company, and is acting under the directions. of such officers or agents in getting upon it, she will be regarded as standing to the company in the relation of a passenger, and it will be liable to her as such for any injury she may receive through the negligence of its agents whilst in the act of getting on board according to the directions given.46

App. 518; affirmed, 198 Ill. 551, 64 N. E. Rep. 1039; Tingley v. Railroad Co., 96 N. Y. Supp. 865, 109 App. Div. 793.

43. Buffett v. The Railroad, 40 N. Y. 168, 36 Barb. 420.

44. Burbank v. Railroad Co., 42 La. Ann. 1156, 11 L. R. A. 720.

45. Hannibal, etc. R. Co. v. Martin, 111 Ill. 219.

46. Railroad Co. v. Voils, 98 Ga. 446, 26 S. E. Rep. 483, 35 L. R. A. 655; Railroad Co. v. Laloge, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 693, 696, 69 S. W. Rep. 795, 62 L. R. A. 405, citing Hutch. on Carr.; Allender v. Railroad Co., 37 Iowa, 264; Railroad Co. v. Groseclose, 88 Va. 267, 13 S. E. Rep. 454, 29 Am. St. Rep. 718;

Railroad Co. v. State, 81 Md. 371, 32 Atl. Rep. 201; Albin v. Railway Co., 103 Mo. App. 308, 77 S. W. Rep. 153; Phillips V. Railway Co., 124 N. Car. 123, 32 S. E. Rep. 388, 45 L. R. A. 163.

Where a person enters a railroad ticket office and requests a ticket, at the same time laying his money for the same on the counter, but he is told by the agent to pay on the train, his relation to the company is that of a passenger. Ramm v. Railroad Co., 94 Iowa, 296, 62 N. W. Rep. 751.

Evidence as to declarations made by a deceased person shortly before he was killed by the de