Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 21 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 21 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


or bodily harm done him, it was held that he could not recover damages of the
sleeping car company. ■'■*

§ 3554. Loss of Ticket. — When a passenger buys a Pullman ticket, and,
before it is delivered to those in charge of the Pullman car, looses it, he does
not thereby loose his right to the seat or berth, to which the purchase of the
ticket entitled him. Where such passenger offers sufficient evidence to those
in charge of the car of his right to the seat, they have no right to eject him, for
his refusal to pay again for the berth or seat.'''''

§ 3555. Bringing- Improper Articles into Oar. — A passenger may be
ejected from a Pullman car, without liability on the part of the Pullman car com-
pany, when such passenger brings into the car improper articles, and refuses to
allow them to be removed therefrom.''*^ The passenger is entitled to a reasonable



91. Thorpe v. New York, etc., R. Co.,
76 N. Y. 402, 32 Am. Rep. 325.

92. Doherty v. Northern Pac. R. Co.,
43 Mont. 294, 115 Pac. 401, 36 L. R. A.,
N. S., 1139.

93. Failure to procure proper railroad
ticket. — Calhoun ^•. Pullman Palace Car
Co.. 149 Fed. 546, holding that where the
ticket must be countersij^ncd to entitle
the holder to transportation, and the
agent of the Pullman car company tells
the holder that it need not be signed, and
sells him a Pullman ticket, and, after
boarding the train, the holder is ejected,
there can be no recovery from the Pull-
man Car Company.

94. Lawrence v. Pullman's Palace Car
Co., 144 Mass. 1, 10 N. E. 723, 59 Am.
Hep. 5H.

95. Loss of ticket. — Pullman Palace
Car Co. -'. Kcrd. 75 [II. 125, 20 ,\m. Rep.
232.

Plaintiff i)urchasc-d from firfi-ndant's
agent a ticki-t for a seat in defendant's
drawing-room car. Having lost it. he a])-
plicd to the agent for another. This the
agent refused, as the diagram showing
the scats for which tickets had l)een is-



sued was no longer in his possession,
but he gave plaintiff his personal card,
on which he wrote and signed a state-
ment that plaintiff held such seat. Plain-
tiff presented the card, with the explana-
tion, to the conductor of the car, but he
refused to permit plaintiff to occupy the
seat, although it was marked on the dia-
gram as sold, and no other person had
claimed it, and informed plaintiff that he
must paj' for the seat or leave the car;
whereupon plaintiff passed into a com-
mon car, and continued there to the end
of his trip. Held, that the exclusion of
plaintiff from the seat was unreasonable,
and defendant was liable in damages suf-
ficient to compensate plaintiff for tlie in-
jury. Buck V. Webb, 58 Ilun 185, 11 N.
V. vS. 617, 33 N. Y. St. Rep. S24.

96. Bringing improper articles into car.
— Rolls of foreign blankets l)eing taken
home by a passenger to l)e used as i)or-
tieres do not constitute baggage which ho
may take with him into a l^ullman car,
and upon his insisting on doing so the
Pullman Company is entitled to terminate
the relation of carrier and passenger and
eject him from the car. Pullman Co. ?•.
Custer (Tex. Civ. \pp.). 1 H) S. \V. 847.



§§ 3555-3558



CARRIERS.



3214



opportunity to check such articles or make other disposition of them. The
company, however, need not take the initiative by tendering opportunity to check ;
and the passenger can not excuse the faihn-e to request an opportunity to check
the articles by any impropriety in the conductor's manner."'

§ 3556. What Constitutes Ejection. — To constitute ejection from a sleep-
ing car it is not essential that the passenger has ever entered the car. If he is
entitled to enter, and is prevented from so doing by the employees of the com-
pany, this constitutes ejection. ^^

Voluntary Abandonment. — If a passenger leaves the Pullman voluntarily,
even though under order of those in charge of the car, there is no ejection.^"
Where the passenger leaves the car for the accommodation of others it is a vol-
untary abandonment.^ If, however, the leaving is to prevent being carried to
a place other than the destination of the passenger, the abandonment is not vol-
untary.2 Where the passenger leaves under protest, at the order of those in
charge of the car, even though he makes no physical resistance, he can not be
said to have voluntarily abandoned the car.-'

§ 3557. Manner of Ejection. — A sleeping car company's employees in
ejecting a passenger must use no more force than is reasonably necessary and
must act in a courteous and considerate manner.'*

§§ 3558-3573. Duties and Liabilities as to Property of Passengers
— § 3558. Nature of Liability. — Sleeping car companies are not liable as in-
surers of the wearing apparel and effects belonging to passengers upon their cars,
nor are they liable as innkeepers, or as common carriers.^ Their liability at most
is that of bailees for hire.*^ But in one case it has been held that a sleeping car
company so far as it renders service similar in kind to an innkeeper is subject to



97. Pullman Co. 7'. Custer (Tex. Civ.
App.), 140 S. W. S47.

98. What constitutes ejectment. — Pull-
man Co. z'. Custer (Tex. Civ. App.), 140
S. W. 847.

99. Voluntary abandonment. — Pullman
Palace Car Co. v. Hocker, 41 Tex. Civ.
App. 607, 93 S. W. 1009. See, also.PuU-
man Palace Car Co. v. Cain, 15 Tex. Civ.
App. 503, 40 S. W. 220.

Evidence that plaintifif, while on a car
which was both an eating and sleeping
car, ordered his berth to be made up:
that the porter replied that it would be
done as soon as he had furnished two
lunches previously ordered; and that,
after an angry dispute, plaintiff went into
a forward car, and sat up all night, though
the berth was made up for him, does not
sustain a verdict for damages for plain-
tifif. Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Ehr-
man, 65 Miss. 383, 4 So. 113.

1. Leaving car for accommodation of
others. — Pullman Palace Car Co. v.
Hocker, 93 S. W. 1009, 41 Tex. Civ. App.
607.

2. Abandonment to prevent being car-
ried to wrong place. — Pullman Palace
Car Co. f. Hocker, 41 Tex. Civ. App. 607,
93 S. W. 1009.

3. Leaving under protest. — Pullman
Palace Car Co. v. Cain, 15 Tex. Civ. App.
503, 40 S. W. 220, holding that where the
passenger leaves the car under such cir-
cumstances, he may show that had he



not left the car he would have been forci-
bly ejected.

4. Manner of ejection. — Pullman Co. z\
Custer (Tex. Civ. App.), 140 S. W. 847.

5. Nature of liability to property of
passengers. — Alabanni. — • Pullman Palace
Car Co. V. Adams, 24 So. 921, 120 Ala.
581, 45 L. R. A. 767, 74 Am. St. Rep. 53.

Georgia. — Pullman's Palace Car Co. v.
Hall, 106 Ga. 765, 32 S. E. 923, 44 L. R.
A. 790, 71 Am. St. Rep. 293.

Illinois. — Pullman Palace Car Co. v.
Smith, 73 111. 360, 24 Am. Rep. 258.

Indiana. — Voss v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co.,
16 Ind. App. 271, 43 N. E. 20, 44 N. E.
1010, 3 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 427.

Missouri. — Root v. New York Cent., etc.,
Co., 28 Mo. App. 199; Morrow v. Pullman
Palace Car Co., 98 Mo. App. 351, 73 S.
W. 281.

AVzy FoirA-.— Williams v. Webb, 58 N.
Y. S. 300, 27 Misc.' Rep. 508. modifying
judgment 49 N. Y. S. 1111, 22 Misc. Rep.
513; Carpenter v. New York, etc., R. Co.,
10 N. \. St. Rep. 712; Welch v. Pullman
Palace Car Co. (N. Y.), Sheld. 457; Ses-
sions v. New York, etc., R. Co., 78 Hun
541, 29 N. Y. S. 628, 61 N. Y. St. Rep. 170.

0/;/o.— Falls River, etc., Mach. Co. v.
Pullman Palace Car Co., 4 N. P. 26, 6 O.
Dec. 85.

6. Liability that of bailee for hire-
Root V. New York Cent., etc., Co., 28 AIo.
App. 199; Morrow v. Pullman Palace Car
Co., 98 Mo. App. 351, 73 S. W. 281.



3215



PALACE CARS AND SLElJPIXG CAR COMPANIES- §§ 3558-3559



the same liabilities." It has been said that a sleeping car company is responsible
as a common carrier of passengers would be in relation to the baggage of a pas-
senger not given into its exclusive custody.®

§§ 3559-3564. Duty to Protect Property— § 3559. In General.— It

is the duty of sleeping car companies to protect the baggage of their passengers by
keeping a sufficient watch and if it is lost or stolen, through their failure to prop-
erly guard it, they are liable therefor.^ While palace and sleeping car companies
are not required to exercise extraordinary care to guard the property of their pas-
sengers, they are bound to exercise reasonable and ordinary care.^*^ They must
use a degree of care commensurate with the danger to which the property is ex-
posed.^' A failure to use ordinary care proportionate to the danger reasonably
to be apprehended would be negligence which would ordinarily render such com-
panies liable for a loss of baggage. ^^



7. Holding that carrier liable as inn-
keeper. — rullman Palace Car Co. t'.
Lowe, 28 Neb. 239, 44 N. \V. 226, 6 L. R.
A. 809, 26 Am. St. Rep. 325, 40 Am. &
Eng. R. Cas. 637.

8. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Pollock,
69 Tex. 120, 5 S. W. 814, 5 Am. St. Rep.
31, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 217, cited in
Voss V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 16 Ind.
App. 271, 43 N. E. 20, 44 N. E. 1010, 3
Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 427. As to
the liability of carriers of passengers for
baggage retained in the custody of the
passenger, see ante, "Property under
Control of Passengers," § 3474.

9. Duty to protect property of passen-
gers. — Georgia. — Pullman Co. r. Schaffner,
55 S. E. 933, 126 Ga. 609, 9 L. R. A., N. S.,
407: Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Alartin,
92 Ga. 161, 18 S. E. 364; Pullman Co. v.
Green, 57 S. E. 233, 128 Ga. 142, 10 Am.
& Eng. Ann. Cas. 893; Pullman's Palace
Car Co. V. Hall, 106 Ga. 765, 32 S. E.
923, 44 L. R. A. 790, 71 Am. St. Rep. 293.

Massachusetts. — ■ Lewis v. New York
Sleeping Car Co., 143 Mass. 267, 9 N. E.
f.15, 58 Am. Rep. 135, 28 Am. & Eng. R.
Cas. 148.

Missouri. — Hampton v. Pullman Palace
Car Co., 42 Mo. App. 134.

South Carolina. — • Godfrey v. Pullman
Co.. 69 S. E. 666, 87 S. C. 36 L

Tennessee. — Pullman Palace Car Co. v.
Gavin, 93 Tenn. (9 Pickle) 53, 23 S. W.
70, 2] L. R. A. 298, 42 Am. St. Rep. 902.

Te.ras. — Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Pol-
lock, 69 Tex. 120, 5 S. W. 814, 5 Am. St.
Rep. 31, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 217; Ste-
venson 7: Pullman Palace Car Co. (Tex.
Civ. App.). 26 S. W. 112; S. C. 32 S. W.
3.'',5; Pullman Sleeping Car Co. v. Hatch,
30 Tex. Civ. App. 303, 70 S. W. 771.

10. Degree of care required. — United
.States. — Hill r. Pullman Co., Ihs l\-<\. 197;
I'ikim 7'. vSouthern Pullman Palace Car
Co., 1 Flii). .100, I'cd. Cas. No. 1.r,74, 21
Am. & Eng. K. Cas. 447.

(ienrfii(i.— Vu\lm-An Co. v. Schaffner, 126
Ga. 609, .15 S. Iv 933, 9 L. R. A., N. S..
407; Pullman Co. v. Green, 128 Ga. 142,57
S. i:. 233. 10 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. K93;
Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Hall, 106 Ga.



765, 32 S. E. 923, 44 L. R. A. 790, 71 Am.
St. Rep. 293; Kates v. Pullman's Palace
Car Co., 95 Ga. 810, 23 S. E. 186, 2 Am. &
Eng._ R. Cas., N. S., 480.

Illinois. — Pullman Palace Car Co. v.
Smith, 73 111. 360, 24 Am. Rep. 258.

Indiana. — Woodruff Sleeping, etc.. Coach
Co. V. Diehl, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 294,
84 Ind. 474, 43 Am. Rep. 102.

Kentucky. — Pullman Palace Car Co. v.
Gaylord, 9 Ky. L. Rep. 58.

Massachusetts. — Lewis v. New York
Sleeping Car Co., 28 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.
148, 143 Mass. 267, 9 N. E. 615, 58 Am.
Rep. 135; Dawley v. Wagner Palace Car
Co., 169 Mass. 315, 47 N. E. 1024.

Missouri. — Scaling v. Pullman Palace
Car Co., 24 Mo. App. 29.

Texas. — Stevenson v. Pullman Palace
Car Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 112;
S. C, 32 S. W. 335; Dargan v. Pullman
Palace Car Co., 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas.,
§ 691, 26 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 149; Belden
V. Pullman Palace Car Co. (Tex. Civ,
App.), 43 S. W. 22; Pullman Palace Car
Co. v. Pollock, 69 Tex. 120. 5 S. W. 814,
5 Am. St. Rep. 31, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.
217; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Mat-
thews, 74 Tex. 654, 12 S. W. 744, 15 Am.
St. Rep. 873.

The care which a sleeping car com-
pany is required to exercise in protect-
ing a passenger from loss of his property
is that ordinary diligence which every
prudent man uses to protect his own
property of a similar nature. If the com-
pany exercises this ordinary care and
diligence, then a passenger can not re-
cover for property lost by him even
though it was lost while he was on the
company's car. Pullman's Palace Car
Co. T'. Harvey. 101 Ga. 733, 28 S. E. 989.

Care as to sleeping passengers. — See
po^t, "While F'asscngcrs .'\ro Asleep." §
;!.".60.

11. Care commensurate with danger. —
Carpenter ?'. New York, etc., R. Co., 124
N. v. 53. 26 N. E. 277, 21 Am. St. Rep.
644, 11 L. R. A. 759. 47 Am. & Eng. R.
Cas. 421.

12. Dargan 7'. Pullman Palace Car Co.,
2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 691, 26 Am. &
Eng. R. Cas. 149.



§ 3539



CARRIljRS.



3216



Liable for Negligence Only. — A sleeping car company is liable for property
lost by its passengers only when it is shown to have been negligent/-'^ or that its
servants in charge purloined the property.i'* So it has been held that, where prop-
erty is stolen from a moving train, by a person from without, by catching on to
the moving sleeping car, and snatching the property from a seat, and drawing it
through an open window, there being no negligence shown, the sleeping car com-
pany can not be held liable.^ ^ Where there is no evidence that the car was at any
time unguarded, there is no liability for a theft committed by a fellow passenger ;
that is a theft the circumstances of which are unknown to the employees, and
not such as might be committed by one in the presence of the servants, or un-
der such circumstances as would reasonably suggest to such servants that a theft
was being or about to be committed. ^"^ But where money is stolen from a pas-
senger by some other passenger approaching the berth from the outside, where
the thief could be seen, the sleeping car company should be held liable for such
loss.i"^

Failure to Close Windows. — Where there is a regulation recjuiring the win-



13. Liable for negligence alone. — Geor-
gia. — ^Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Hall,
106 Ga. 765, 32 S. E. 923, 44 L. R. A. 790,
71 Am. St. Rep. 293.

Illinois. — Pullman Palace Car Co. v.
Smith. 73 111. 360, 24 Am. Rep. 258.

Indiana. — Woodruff Sleeping, etc.,
Coach Co. V. Diehl, 84 Ind. 474, 43 Am.
Rep. 102, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 294.

Massachusetts. — Lewis v. New York
Sleeping Car Co., 143 Mass. 267, 9 N. E.
615, 58 Am. Rep. 135, 28 Am. -^ Eng. R.
Cas. 148; Whicher v. Boston, etc., R. Co.,
176 Mass. 275, 57 N. E. 601, 79 Am. St.
Rep. 314.

Missoitri. — Root v. New York Cent.,
etc., Co., 28 Mo. App. 199.

New York. — Welch v. Pullman Palace
Car Co. (N. Y.), 16 Abb. Prac, N. S..
352; Carpenter v. New York, etc., R. Cc,
10 N. Y. St. Rep. 712; Weldin^^ v. Wag-
ner (N. Y.), 1 City Ct. R. 66; Sessions 7.:
New York, etc., R. Co., 78 Hun 541, 29
N. Y. S. 028, 61 N. Y. St. Rep. 170.

Ohio. — Falls River, etc., Mach. Co. v.
Pullman Palace Car Co., 6 O. Dec. 85, 4
N. P. 26.

Pennsylvania. — Springer v. Pullman Co.,
234 Pa. 172, 83 Atl. 98.

Texas. — Pullman Sleeping Car Co. v.
Hatch, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 303, 70 S. W.
771; Dargan v. Pullman Palace Car Co.,
2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 691, 26 Am. &
Eng. R. Cas. 149.

A sleeping car company is not liable
for the loss of a scarf pin placed by a
passenger in a receptacle at the head of
his berth on retiring for the night, un-
less it is shown that the company or its
agents were chargeable with negligence.
Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Gaylord, 6 Ky.
L. Rep. 279.

A sleeping-car company is not liable
for the loss of baggage of a passenger
which was left by him in his berth, and
lost or abstracted therefrom during his
temporary absence, if it exercised rea-
sonable care to prevent the loss, or such
care as is customarily used in such cases.



Efron V. Wagner Palace Car Co., 59 Mo.
.App. 641.

A passenger on a railroad train in the
daytime went into a sleeping car, the
porter accompanying him, carrying his
hand bag. The hand bag was placed in
the section nearest the door, and the
passenger stood beside it for 10 minutes,
and then went into the smoking com-
partment, where he remained half an
hour, and then returned to his hand bag,
and, taking something out of it, returned
to the smoking compartment, where he
remained five hours. The train, moving
all the time, stopped at a number of
stations, when he again returned to
where the handbag was left, it was miss-
ing. Held, that neither the railroad com-
pany nor the sleeping car company was
liable therefor, neither being negligent.
Whicher v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 57 N. E.
601, 176 Mass. 275, 79 Am. St. Rep. 314.

Plaintiff went upon a sleeping car be-
tween 12 and 1 o'clock at night. He did
not leave his valise in charge of any
servant or employee of the company, nor
did he call the attention of the conductor
or porter to the fact that he had a va-
lise. He placed his valise in the aisle
near the smoking room and immediately
returned to his berth. In the morning
the valise was gone. Held, that no neg-
ligence was shown on the part of the
sleeping car company, and hence no
cause of action against it was estab-
lished. Dargan v. Pullman Palace Car
Co.. 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 691, 26 Am.
& Eng. R. Cas. 149.

14. Pullman Sleeping Car Co. v. Hatch,
30 Tex. Civ. App. 303, 70 S. W. 771. See
post, "Thefts by Employees," § 3567.

15. Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Hall, 106
Ga. 765, 32 S. E. 923, 44 L. R. A. 790, 71
Am. St. Rep. 293.

16. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Handy, 63
Miss. 609, 56 Am. Rep. 846.

17. Falls River, etc., Mach. Co. v. Pull-
man Palace Car Co., 6 O. Dec. 85, 4 N.
P. 26.



3217



PALACE CARS AND SLl^EPIXG CAR COMPANIES. §§ 3559-3560



dows of a Pullman car to be closed, while the train is at a station, a violation of
this regulation is negligence. ^^

Duty to Provide Safe Depository. — No duty rests upon a sleeping car com-
pany to provide its cars with a safe depository for the valuables of its passen-
gers.^^

§ 3560. While Passengers Are Asleep. — A sleeping car company owes
the duty to properly watch over its cars at night, while its passengers are asleep,
in their berths, and guard their property from loss by theft or otherwise. If
property belonging to its passengers be so lost, by the failure of the sleeping car
company to so watch over its car, it is liable therefor.^" A higher degree of care
to protect the goods of a sleeping passenger would seem to be required than that
which the company must exercise when the passenger is awake and able to pro-
tect himself, and while extraordinary diligence is not required by the law in either
case, yet it must exercise a reasonable degree of care to protect his goods while
he is sleeping. 21 The duty to guard over its passengers arises even before the



18. Failure to close windows. — While
plaintiff was a passenger on a sleeping
car, his valise was stolen from the car
at a station in Mexico. The rules of the
company required the rear door and win-
dows of the car to be closed while at
such stations. The conductor and porter
testified that thej' were so closed just
before entering the station, and that
while there they stood on the platform
near the car. Plaintiff stepped out of the
car, leaving the valise near an open win-
dow at which two passengers sat. They
moved away while he was gone, with-
out closing the window, and soon after
the train started the loss was discovered.
Held, that findings that the company's
emploj^ees were negligent in not keeping
the window closed, or in failing to see
and prevent the theft, and that plaintiff
was not negligent, were justified. Pull-
man Palace Car Co. z: Arents, 66 S. W.
329, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 71.

19. Duty to provide safe depository. — •
Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Gaylord, 9
Ky. L. Rep. 58.

20. While passengers are asleep. —
United States. — Blum v. Southern Pullman
Palace Car Co., 1 l-lip. 500, Fed. Cas.
No. 1.974. 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 447;
Hill V. Pullman Co., 188 Fed. 497.

Georgia.— Kates v. Pullman's Palace
Car Co., 95 Ga. 810, 2.3 S. E. 186, 2 Am.
& Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 480; Pullman Pal-
ace Car Co. V. Martin, 92 Ga. 161, 18 S.
i".. 364.

Indiana. — Woodruff Sleeping, etc.,
Coach Co. V. Dichl, 84 Tnd. 474, 9 Am.
it Eng. R. Cas. 294, 43 Am. Rep. 102.

.Missouri. — Morrow v. Pullman Palace
Car Co., V3 S. W. 281. 98 Mo. App. 351.

iXczv York. — Williams v. Webb, 58 N.
Y. S. 300, 27 Misc. Rep. r,OH, modifying
judgment 49 X. Y. S. 1111, 22 Misc. Rep.
513; Carpenter v. New York, etc., R. Co.,
15 X. Y. St. Rep. 345.

Penns\lvama. — Pullman Palace Car Co.

Gardner (Pa.), 16 Am. & Eng. K. Cas.
324.



South Carolina. — Calder v. Southern R.
Co., 71 S. E. 811, 89 S. C. 287.

A sleeping car company may be liable
for failing to keep a watch, whereby a
passenger's property was stolen, though
it was stolen after the passenger's com-
panion had left the berth, and while he
was walking up and down the aisle.
Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Adams, 24
So. 921, 120 Ala. 581, 45 L. R. A. 767,
74 Am. St. Rep. 53.

When a passenger on a sleeping car,
in which there were only curtains divid-
ing the sections and separating them
from the aisle, and no special watch was
kept, lost personal effects which he had
placed under his pillow, the company
was liable as for negligence, either in
not furnishing apartments that could be
securely closed, or in not supplying a
watch. Woodruff Sleeping, etc., Coach
Co. V. Diehl. 84 Ind. 474, 43 Am. Rep.
102, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 234.

21. Degree of care required. — United
States. — Barrett v. Pullman's Palace Car
Co., 51 Fed. 796.

Georgia. — Pullman's Palace Car Co. v.
Hall. 106 Ga. 765, 32 S. E. 923, 44 L. R.
A. 790, 71 Am. St. Rep. 293.

Indiana. — Woodruff Sleeping, etc.. Coach
Co. V. Diehl, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 294,
84 Ind. 474, 43 Am. Rep. 102.

Kentucky. — Myers v. Pullman Co., 149
S. W. 1002, 149 Ky. 776, 41 L. R. A., N.
S., 799; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Gay-
lord. 9 Ky. 1.. Rep. 58.

Massacltusclts. — Lewis 7'. New York
Sleeping Car Co., 28 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.
148, 143 Mass. 267, 9 N. E. 615, 58 Am.
Kep. 135; Whicher v. Boston, etc., R. Co.,
176 Mass. 275, 57 N. E. 601, 79 Am. St.
Rep. 314.

.)Iissouri. — Scaling v. Pullman Palace
Car Co., 24 Mo. App. 29; Hampton v.
IMdlman Palace Car Co., 42 Mo. App.
134.

Nnv York. — CarpeiUcr ik New York,
etc., R. Co, 47 Am. (,•<: Ivng. R. Cas. 421,



§ 3560



CARRIERS.



5218



sleeping car company has notice of any danger, or facts sufficient to cause it to
anticipate any danger, to its passengers or their property.22 And a sleeping car
company is liable for negligently permitting thieves to steal a passenger's prop-
erty while he was sleeping, though he did not notify the company that he had the
property.-^ A sleeping car company has not exercised reasonable care to protect
the baggage of a sleeping passenger where it allows several passengers to leave
the car with baggage, without paying any attention as to whose it is, and its por-
ter, might by attention prevent the removal of the sleeping passenger's baggage
from the car by a stranger. - *

Careful and Continuous Watch. — It is the duty of a sleeping car company
to maintain a careful and continuous watch over the interior of the car while the
berths are occupied by sleepers. If the property is stolen by a fellow passenger
or by an intruder on the train, in consequence of the failure of the company to
maintain this careful and continuous watch, the company will be liable for its
value.-'' But, the duty of the company does not extend to keeping in actual view
of its servants the person and clothing of the passengers during the night ; and in
case of theft it is liable for negligence only by reason of a failure to continuously
watch the passageway and the berths from the outside, and to prevent any intru-
sion or larceny which could be detected by such continuous watching.^^ Where
the doors of the car are left open and unguarded so that unauthorized persons
may have access to it, or the officers charged with its superintendence leave it
without that supervision by them which the passengers had a right to rely on, it
would seem that such negligence is shown as would render the company liable
for a loss.-'



124 N. Y. 53, 26 N. E. 277, 21 Am. St.
Rep. 644, 11 L. R. A. 7.59.

Ohio. — Falls River, etc., Mach. Co. v.
PuUman Palace Car Co., 4 N. P. 26, 6 O.
Dec. 85.

Pennsylvania. — Pullman Palace Car Co.



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 21 of 214)