Thomas Johnson Michie.

A treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) online

. (page 13 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 13 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

upon arriving at his place of destination the passenger leaves his baggage in
charge of the carrier, the liability of the carrier, as such, will not be changed to
that of warehouseman, until the baggage is stored in a safe and secure ware-
house. If the baggage be placed in an insecure room, and is stolen, the carrier
will be responsible in that capacity, not as a warehouseman.'"^
Where a carrier retains baggage under his lien for fare, and articles are

Co., 67 X. Y. 11; Powell v. Myers, 26
Wend. 591; Roth v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co.,
34 N. Y. 548, 90 Am. Dec. 736; Mattison
V. New York Cent. R. Co., 57 N. Y. 552;
Burnell v. New York Cent. R. Co., 45 N.
Y. 184, 6 Am. Rep. 61; Nevins v. Bay
State Steamboat Co.. 17 N. Y. Super. Ct.
225; Klein v. Hamburg, etc.. Packet Co.,
3 Daly 390; Mortland v. Philadelphia,
etc., R. Co., 81 Hun 473, 30 N. Y. S. 1021,
63 N. Y. St. Rep. 215; Burgcvin v. New
York, etc., R. Co., 69 Hun 479, 23 N. Y.
S. 415, 52 N. Y. St. Rep. 617; Hart v.
Rensselaer, etc., R. Co., 8 N. Y. 37, 59
Am. Dec. 447.

Xorth Carolina. — After baggage has
been deposited in the usual place of de-
livery at destination, a sufficient time for
the passenger to remove it, the carrier is
thereafter only a warehouseman. Char-
Ifttc Trouser Co. v. Seal)oard, etc., R.
Co., 1.39 N. C. 382, 51 S. E. 973, 21 R. R.
R. 4.59, 44 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S.,

Pennsylvania. — National Line Steam-
Jiip Co. V. Smart, 107 Pa. 492.

r^^aj.— Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Smith,
PI Tex. 479, 17 S. \V. 133; Gulf, etc.. R.
Co. V. Jackson, 4 Texas App. Civ. Cas.,
§ 47, 15 S. VV. 128; Galveston, etc.. R. Co.
V. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. W. 008;
Texas, etc. R. Co. v. Cai)ps, 2 Texas .Ai)p.
Civ. Cas., § 33. 10 .\m. & Eng. R. Cas.

I'crmant. — Ouimit ?'. Hcnshaw, 35 Vt.
005, 8J .Am. Dec. 010.

I'irfiinia. — Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v.
Bcaslcy. etc., Co.. 104 Va. 788, 52 S. E.
500, 3 L. R. A., N. S., 183.

Wisconsin. — Hoeger v. Chicago, etc., R.
Co., 03 Wis. 100, 23 N. W\ 435, 21 .'\m.
& Eng. R. Cas. 308, 5a. Am. Rep. 271;
Pike V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 40 Wis. 583;
Whitney v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 27 Wis.

England. — Patscheider v. Great West-
ern R. Co., 3 Ex. D. 154; Penton v. Grand
Trunk R,. Co., 28 U. C. Q. B. 367.

Canada. — Vineburg v. Grand Trunk R.
Co., 13 Out. App. 93, 27 Am.. & Eng. R.
Cas. 271; Brown v. Canadian Pac. R. Co.,

3 Man. (Can.) 490.

91. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Jones, 150
Ala. 379, 43 So. 575, 9 L. R. A., N. S.,

Where a passenger neglects to take
l)aggage from the possession of a rail-
roaid company within a reasonable time,
the company is subject to a contractual
liability to care therefor as warehouse-
man. Blackmore v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.,
02 S. W. 993, 162 Mo. 455.

92. Burnell v. New York Cent. R. Co.,
45 X. ^'. 1«4, 8 Am. Rt'i). 01.

93. Reasonable time of detention by car-
rier.— Georgia R., etc., Co. z: riullii-s, 93
Ga. 801, 20 S. E. 646.

94. Delivery by carrier to warehouse-
man. — roniisvlvania Co. t'. EivcriglU, 14
Ind. AiM>. ''1^, 11 X. I'.. ;;.-.i). 43 X. E. 102.

95. Must be ready to deliver. — Dininny
f. New \orls, etc., K. Co., A'.) X. Y. 540,

4 .Am. R. Rep. 457.

96. Baggage placed in insecure ware-
house. l'.:irtiinl')iiK-\v 7'. St. Louis, etc.,
R. Co., 53 ill. 227. 5 Am. Rep. 45; Chi-
cago, etc., R. Co. 7'. Eairclough, 52 111.

§§ 3500-3501



taken therefrom while it is in his possession, he is liable for the loss.""

Effect of Custom. — The course of business and practice of the carrier with
respect to the custody of baggage after it has reached its final destination is an
important element in determining its liability therefor. '^^

§ 3501. What Constitutes Reasonable Time for Removal of Baggage.

— What constitutes a reasonable time in which baggage must be removed in or-
der to hold a common carrier liable as such for its loss depends on the particular
facts and circumstances of each case."*' A reasonable time for the removal of
baggage is not the same as that allowed for the removal of freight. ^ It is held
thai the reasonable time, within which the owner must apply for his baggage,
when it is transported by the same train on which he himself travels, is directly
after its arrival and transfer to the platform, making due allowance for the con-
fusion occasioned by the arrival and departure of the train, and for the delay
necessarily caused by the crowd on the platform.- It is held that the lateness of
the hour makes no difference if the baggage be put upon the platform.^ And it
has been held that the fact that the passenger arrived on Sunday, on which day
labor was prohibited by statute, did not extend the reasonable time within which
baggage should be removed.-* A delay of twenty-four hours,-'^ or until the day

97. Retaining baggage under lien for
fare. — Southwestern R. Co. 7'. Bentley, 51
Ga. 311.

98. Effect of custom. — Ouimit v. Hen-
shaw, :;:> Vt. fiO.^, 84 Am. Dec. G46.

99. What constitutes reasonable time. —
United States.— Jacobs v. Tutt, 33 Fed. 412;
Wiegand v. Central R. Co., 75 Fed. 370.

Illinois. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Boyce,
73 111. 510, 24 Am. Rep. 268.

Iowa. — ^Mote v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 27
Iowa 22, 1 Am. Rep. 212; Dittman, etc.,
Shoe Co. z: Keokuk, etc., R. Co., 91 Iowa
416, 59 N. W. 257, 51 Am. St. Rep. 352.

Kentucky. — -Louisville, etc., R. Co. v.
Mahan, 8 "Bush 184.

Mississippi. — Zeigler Bros. v. Mobile,
etc., R. Co., 87 Miss. 367, 39 So. 811.

New For/?.— Roth v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co.,
34 N. Y. 548, 90 Am. Dec. 73G; Jones v.
Norwich, etc., Transp. Co., 50 Barb. 19o;
Nevins v. Bay State Steamboat Co., 17
N. Y. Super. Ct. 225; Matteson v. New
York, etc.. R. Co., 76 N. Y. 381; Dininny
V. New York, etc., R. Co., 49 N. Y. 546,
4 Am. R. Rep. 457; Powell v. Myers (N.
Y.), 26 Wend. 591.

Vermont. — Ouimit v. Henshaw. 35 Vt.
605, _84_ Am. Dec. 646.

Virginia. — Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v.
Beasley, etc., Co., 104 Va. 788, 53 S. E.
566, 3 L. R. A.. N. S., 183.

Wisconsin. — Tallman v. Chicago, etc., R.
Co., 136 Wis. 648, 118 N. W. 205, 16 Am.
& Eng. Ann. Cas. 711.

Canada. — Vineburg v. Grand Trunk R.
Co., 13 Ont. App. 93, 27 Am. & Eng. R.
Cas. 271.

In determining what will be reasonable
time, the customs of the railway and of
the station, the manner of transporting
baggage therefrom, in short, the peculiar
circumstances surrounding each case,
must be considered. Mote v. Chicago,
etc., R. Co., 27 Iowa 22, 1 Am. Rep. 212;
Dittman, etc.. Shoe Co. v. Keokuk, etc..

R. Co., 91 Iowa 416, 59 N. W. 257, 51 Am.
St. Rep. 352.

1. Reasonable time not that allowed
for removal of freight. — Ouimit v. Hen-
shaw, 35 Vt. 605, 84 Am. Dec. 646.

2. Directly after arrival. — Chicago, etc.,
R. Co. V. Addizoat, 17 111. App. 632, cit-
ing Chicago, etc., P.. Co. v. Boyce, 73 111.
510, 24 Am. Rep. 268; Roth v. Buffalo,
etc., R. Co., 34 N. Y. 548, 90 Am. Dec.
736; Louisville, etc., R. Co. z\ Mohan
(Ky.), 8 Bush 784; Bansemer v. Toledo,
etc., R. Co., 25 Ind. 434, 87 Am. Dec.
367; Porter v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 20
111. 407, 71 Am. Dec. 286. See Ouimit v.
Henshaw, 35 Vt. 605. 84 Am. Dec. 646,
wherein the court said: "We believe it
to be the usual custom to deliver and re-
ceive baggage, not only during what is
called business hours of the day, _ but
upon the arrival of trains in the night,
and at almost any hour of the night.
The traveler is rarely willing, after ar-
riving at his destination, to leave his
baggage at a railroad depot, and the rail-
way companies are usually desirous to
dispatch business, and be relieved from
their responsibility. Hence, immediate
delivery is the rule as to baggage."

3. Lateness of hour of arrival. — Ouimit
V. Henshaw. 35 Vt. 605, 84 Am. Dec. 646.

4. Arrival on Sunday. — Jones v. Nor-
wich, etc., Transp. Co. (N. Y.), 50 Barb.

5. Delay of twenty-four hours. — Where
the owner of a valise which had been
transported as baggage allowed it to re-
main in the company's open depot, where
baggage was usually kept, without making
any arrangement for it, for some twenty-
four hours before calling for it, and in the
meantime it was stolen, it was held that
the liability of the company as carrier
ceased upon the arrival of the baggage,
and that therefore it was only liable as

3171 passengers' effects. § 3501

after the arrival of baggage,*' has been held unreasonable. Thus, where baggage
arrived in the evening and was placed in the baggage room, according to custom,
and could not be found in the morning, the liability of the railway company was
that of warehouseman.' And where a passenger arrived after eleven o'clock,
at night at a station where there were no conveyances running, the nearest be-
ing a mile distant, and left his baggage, which he saw on the platform, in the
possession of the railway company, and it was destroyed by fire in the ware-
house of the company on the same night at one o'clock, it was held that such
passenger had a reasonable time in which to receive and remove the baggage.^
\\here a passenger on a steamboat arriving at one o'clock Sunday morning left
the boat at nine o'clock without giving notice, and her baggage which had been
placed in a warehouse early in the morning was burned by an accidental fire in
the afternoon, it was held that the carrier was liable only as a w^arehouseman.'''

Illness of Passenger. — Reasonable time for taking baggage away will not
be extended by illness of the passenger, though the carrier may have given him
a lay-over ticket on account of his illness.^"

Convenience of Cabman. — Where a passenger leaves his baggage at the sta-
tion until the following morning, for no other reason than that his cabman could
not conveniently carry it, it is not taking it away within the reasonable time re-
quired by law ; and in the meantime the liability of the company will be only that
of a bailee. '^^

Instances Where Carrier's Liability Not Changed. — It lias been held that
failure to claim baggage until thirty-six hours after its arrival does not change
the carrier's liability for its loss to that of a warehouseman without a showing
that the loss was due to the delay. i- Where a passenger waited after arriving
at her destination for fifteen minutes to receive her baggage, the baggage master
being absent, and then went away, and sent her son three hours afterwards for
it, and he on arriving at the depot found the baggage master still absent, but
finally found him, delivered his check, and received the baggage, and in the
meantime the conveyance that he employed to remove it had gone, and being
unable to procure another, he left the baggage with the baggage master for the
night, and during the night the contents of the baggage were stolen, it was held
that the liability of the carrier as insurer had not terminated. ^^ And where a
passenger reached his destination at 7 :25 o'clock in the evening of a severe win-
ter day, and his baggage was removed to the station to be w^eighed and the sta-
tion was locked an hour later, when the agent left for the night, and there was
no reasonable way in which the baggage could have been removed at night, ex-
cept by breaking the seal of a loaded freight car and making passageway through
it, anrl it did not appear that such passenger knew that that was possible, it was

bailee. Holdridpe v. Utica, etc., R. Co. 7. Canipljell v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., TS

(N. Y.), 56 Barb. 101; Roth v. Buffalo, Neb. 479. Ill N. W. i;76.

etc., R. Co., ?A X. Y. ri48, 90 Am. Dec. 8. Arrival late at night — No convey-

736. ances running. — Kansas, etc., R. Co. :•.

6. Day after arrival.— It has been held McGahey, (i:! Ark. 344, 38 S. \V. 059, 3G

that where a passenger fails to call for I.. R. A. 781, 58 Am. vSt. Rep. 111.

a trunk which has been checked on a 9. Jones v. Norwich, etc., Transp. Co.

railroad, until the day after his arrival (N. Y.), .">0 Barb. 19:;.

at his destination, such delay imder or- 10. Illness of passenger.— Chicago, etc.,

dinary circumstances is unreasonable, and R. Co. v. Boyce, 73 111. 510, :24 .\ni. Rep.

relieves the carrier of his responsibility L'Gs.

as such, and such carrier is held to as- 11. Convenience of cabmen. — Vincbur;?

sume the duties ol a warehouseman v. Grand 'i'ltmk R. C<\, i;; ():it. A pp. 93,

thereafter. \Viej?and v. Central R. Co., ;.'? Am. ^S.- I'.n;;. R. Cas. :.':i.

75 I"td. 37(1. 12. Failure to claim baggage within

I''rom the afternoon until between nine thirty-six hours, i.arned .-. Central R.

and ten o'clock of the next day is not a Co., si \. j. I,. 571, 79 .\tl. :2S9.

reasonable time for a passenger to delay 13. Where carrier in fault.— Dininny v.

demanding his baRgagc at the place of New ^'ork, etc., R. Co., 49 N. Y. 540, 4

destination. Jacobs v. Tutt, 33 Fed. 412. Am. R. Rtp. 457.

4 Car — 5

§§ 3501-3502 c.^RRTI•RS. 3172

held, that the carrier was liable, as such, where the goods were destroyed dur-
ing the night by fire.^"* Where upon plaintiff's arrival at destination about 5
p. m. on Sunday, there being no conveyances at the train, and his baggage being
too heavy for him to carry, he left the baggage and the duplicate check therefor
with the baggage master, stating that he would send for the grip that evening
or the next morning, and it being very inconvenient for him to remove the bag-
gage that evening, even if he could have secured a conveyance, it was not re-
moved until between 8:30 and 9 the next morning, it was held, that a finding
that the grip was removed within a reasonable time, so that defendant's liability
as a carrier continued until its removal, was proper. ^^

Questions for Court or Jury. — The question what constitutes a reasonable
time for the delivery of baggage to a passenger is generally one for the jury to
determine from all the facts and circumstances of the case, but if the facts are
undisputed, it is for the determination of the court. ^^'

§ 3502. Special Contract for Storage. — A railway company's liability re-
specting baggage is that of a warehouseman, and not a carrier, where the carriage
has been completed and a special contract made for storage.^" So a railroad
company in maintaining a parcel room where, for a nominal charge, persons
may have their belongings cared for does not act in its capacity as a common
carrier, as the articles are not checked for transportation but for safe-keeping and
redelivery at the place of deposit, but acts in the capacity of a warehouseman. ^^
Where a railroad company held itself out as willing to take charge of a suit case
and redeliver it on presentation of a check, and demanded and received a certain
compensation, that this compensation was small was of no consequence, its ade-
quacy being a matter for the determination of the parties, and, they having agreed,
the courts will not interfere and hold the contract a bailment for accommodation
and not for hire.^^ Where a carrier posted in its baggage room at a depot
a notice, fixing charges for storage of baggage remaining over 24 hours, and a
passenger, with knowledge of and in reliance on the notice, deposited baggage
and obtained a claim check, intending to pay and tendering payment of the pre-
scribed charges, the carrier was a bailee for hire, and if it did not intend to avail
itself of the right to charge it was required to so inform the passenger at the
time he offered the baggage for storage ; and hence it was liable for negligent loss
of the baggage.-*'

Baggage Retained by Carrier for Accommodation. — It has been held that
where the baggage of a passenger has been actually delivered to him at his desti-
nation, and he, for his own convenience, delivers it to the baggage master to be
kept until sent for, the carrier after that is only liable for gross negligence as a
gratuitous bailee. -^ And it has been held that where a passenger tells a station
porter that he will leave his luggage at the station for a short time and then send

14. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Bcasley, 17. Special contract for storage. — Ya-
etc., Co., 52 S. E. 56G, 104 Va. 78S, 3 L. R. zoo, etc., R. Co. v. Hughes, 94 Miss. 242,
A., N. S., 183. 47 So. 662, 22 L. R. A., N. S., 075; Na-

15. Talhnan v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 136 tional Line Steamship Co. v. Smart, 107
Wis. 648, 118 N. W. 205, 10 Am. & Eng. Pa. 492.

Ann. Cas. 711. 18. Maintaining parcel room. — Fraam v.

16. When question for court or jury. — Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co., 161 Mich. 556,
/oita.— Dittman, etc.. Shoe Co. v. Keokuk, 126 N. W. 851, 29 L. R. A., N. S.. 834. 21
etc., R. Co.. 91 Iowa 416, 59 N. W. 257, 51 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 96.

Am. St. Rep. 352. 19. Fraam v. Grand Rapids, etc., R.

Kentucky.— hon\sv\\\t, etc., R. Co. v. Co., 161 Mich. 556, 126 N. W. 851, 29 L.

Mahan, 8 Bush 184. R. A., N. S., 834, 21 Am. & Eng. Ann.

Mississippi. — Zeigler Bros. v. Mobile, Cas. 96.

etc., R. Co., 87 Miss. 367, 39 So. 811. 20. Milwaukee Mirror, etc.. Works v.

Nezv York. — Burgevin v. New York, etc., Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Wis.), 134 N. W.

R. Co., 69 Hun 479, 23 N. Y. S. 415, 52 N. 379.

Y. St. Rep. 617. 21. Baggage retained by carrier for ac-

Canada. — Brown v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., commodation. — Minor 7'. Chicago, etc., R.

3 Manitoba L. Rep. 496. Co., 19 Wis. 40, 88 Am. Dec. 670.

3173 passengers' effects. §§ 3502-3504

for it, and the porter replies that he will take care of it, this amounts to a delivery
of his luggage by the company and a redelivery by the passenger to the porter
as his agent ; accordingly the company is not liable for the loss of such luggage.-^'
It has been held, however, that where a railroad passenger is unable, from lame-
ness, to take away his baggage himself on arriving at his destination, but makes
an arrangement with the baggage master to retain it until he can send for it,
the railroad companv's liability as common carrier continues until it is so sent

§ 3503. Bag-gage Awaiting Delivery to or by Connecting Carrier. —

See post, '"Liability as Warehouseman,'' § 3511.

§§ 3504-3505. Duties and Liabilities — § 3504. In General.— Where
a carrier's duty in relation to baggage has become that of a warehouseman, such
duty requires the carrier to place the baggage in a proper and suitable place and
to exercise ordinary care and diligence in safely keeping it there and in protecting
it from exposure to the weather. - * And the carrier is liable when it fails to
store baggage in a secure place. -'^ It has been held that no inference of negli-
gence arises from the fact that the carrier had converted a box car into a depot,^^
or that a depot was constructed of pine timber where it was in a small town, and
not exposed to any unusual danger from fire.-"^ Where baggage is lost by fire,
the fact that the agents of the company in charge of the depot failed to take steps
to prevent a traction engine near the depot from being moved by steam at night
is not evidence of negligence, as there was no reasonable ground to apprehend
danger from escaping sparks.-^ Where a carrier maintained two places in its
depot for the storage of baggage at slightly different rates, a passenger had the
option to select either place, in the absence of any objection by the carrier that
the right place was not selected when he tendered the baggage for storage; and
the carrier, by accepting it for storage in one place, was estopped from asserting
that it should have been taken to the other place. ^^

Keeping Night "Watchman.— It has been held that a carrier liable as a ware-
houseman was under no duty to keep a night watchman at its station in a re-
spectable residence part of the town where there was no lawless element to con-

22. Hodkinson v. London & X. W. R. following day. On the third day it was
Co., L. R., 15 Q. B. D. 228, W. R. GG:.'. found that the trunk had been placed in
5 Ry. & C. T. Cas. ix. the common passenger room, and while

23. Curtis v. Avon, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), there had Ijeen ritled, that room having
49 Harb. 148. been broken into in the nighttime, when

24. Duties as warehouseman. — Char- it was locked and the windows nailed
lolte Trouser Co. v. Seal)oar(l, etc., K. down. Held, that the company was
Co.. :,\ S. E. 07.}, L-iO X. C. 382, 21 R. R. guilty of negligence, even if it was to be
R. 4.-,9, 44 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 4.59. regarded as a warehouseman, and was

25. Baggage room insecurely fastened.

tlicrefore liable for the value of the stolen

-A carrier received a passenger's ^■^^'^J}^'; Warner r.P.urhngton, etc.. R.

baggage on the station platform, and Co ,.'.Mowa IGG. 92 .Am. Dec. .{h9

thence stored it in a baggage room which , ^S- Box car used for depot-Levi v.

was insecurely closed, and from which ; ,'" o'"(v %\' '" '"" ' ''^- •'''^^•

the contents of the trunk were stolen, is „- tO I' ^ ^ j r ■

liable as a warehouseman for failing to „;2^-,^*^P?* constructed of pine timber _

store it in a secure place. Mote t-. Chi- JY^^^ ./V' ^'°t""\J "' tl^.'' -^t J^^xr oL^^c;

cairo. etc.. R. Co.. ::T Iowa 22, 1 Am. Rep. 'f'' \ r^' V. ^]^^- ?^-' ^^ ^' ^- *'''"' ^^

' .\m. iV R. 12.).

'Irunk left in waiting room.— .A passen- 28. Traction engine near depot.- Wald

Kcr ujHjn a railroad was promised by an ^'- Eouisville, etc., R. Co., 92 Ky. Gl"). \:\

agent of the road that his trunk, which •>>• I-^ •<«-;P- «•->•'«. •« S. W. 8.50. 5H Am. <S:

was locked nj) in the baggage room of an- '■•"!>'■• ''''• Cas. i:.'.'>.

other road at the time he wished tf) start, 29. Improper place for storage — Carrier

should be s«-iit by the next train. He in- estopped. ■ Milwaukee Mirror, etc..

quirerl for the trunk at the depot the day Works r. Chicagt), etc., R. Co. (Wis.),

after Ills at his destination. :md tlx- i:!| \. W. :t79.

j§ 3504-3506



tend with.^^ And it is also held that a carrier is not required to keep a night
watch about a warehouse, or to have some one to sleep in it, where the average
amount of goods stored in it does not exceed five hundred dollars."^

§ 3505. Liability Dependent upon Existence of Negligence. — A com-
mon carrier of passengers is required to exercise only ordinary care for the
safety of a passenger's baggage while it is in its custody as a warehouseman, and
so whether or not the carrier is liable as a warehouseman for the loss of or in-
jury to such baggage depends upon whether such injury was the result of negli-
gence for which it was responsible."- So a carrier while acting as a warehouse-
man is not liable for loss of baggage by fire,^^ or theft, ^'^ without fault on its part.

Gratuitous Bailee. — Where the carrier is liable only as a gratuitous bailee it
is not liable for loss of baggage except upon proof of gross negligence on its

§§ 3506-3514. Connecting Carriers— §§ 3506-3511. Liability of Ini-
tial Carrier — § 3506. In General. — It is held that the liability of an initial
carrier of baggage for its loss or injury, while it is on the line of or being car-

30. Night watchman. — Levi v. Missouri,
etc., R. Co., 157 Mo. App. 536, 138 S. W.

31. Pike V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 40 Wis.

32. Degree of care — Liability dependent
upon existence of negUgence. — Arkansas.
— Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. Thomas, 97 Ark.
287, 133 S. W. 1030; Little Rock, etc., R.
Co. V. Hunter, 42 Ark. 200; Kansas, etc.,
R. Co. v. McGahey, 38 S. W. 659, 63 Ark.
344, 36 L. R. A. 781, 58 Am. St. Rep. 111.

Georgia. — Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Thomp-
son, 86 Ga. 327, 12 S. E. 640; Southern R.
Co. z\ Rosenheim & Sons, 1 Ga. App. 766,
58 S. E. 81; Rome R. Co. v. Wimberly, 75
Ga. 316, 58 Am. Rep. 468.

Illinois. — ^Bradley v. Chicago, etc., R.
Co., 147 111. App. 397.

Indiana. — Indiana, etc., R. Co. v. Zilly, 51
N. E. 141, 20 Ind. App. 569.

lozva. — Mote v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 27
Iowa 22, 1 Am. Rep. 212; Warner v. Bur-
lington, etc., R. Co., 22 Iowa 166, 92 Am.
Dec. 389.

Kansas. — Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. Patten,
3 Kan. App. 338, 45 Pac. 108.

Kentucky. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v.
Mahan, 8 Bush 184; Wald v. Louisville,
etc., R. Co., 92 Ky. 645, 13 Ky. L. Rep.
853, 18 S. W. 8.50, 58 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.

Massachusetts. — Nealand v. Boston, etc..
Railroad, 161 Mass. 67, 36 N. E. 592;
Murray v. International Steamship Co.,
170 Mass. 166, 48 N. E. 1093, 64 Am. St.
Rep. 290.

Michigan. — Fraam v. Grand Rapids, etc.,

Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 13 of 214)