WHO ARE PASSENGERS.
Beginning of Relation.
After signaling street car, 369.
Approaching train to board, 367.
At station at proper time before departure of train, 363.
At station to purchase ticket, 362.
At station too soon, 366.
Attempting to board moving train or street car, 375.
Attempting to board street car at proper point, 374.
Attempting to board street car at wrong point, 375.
Attempting to board train with proper ticket, 372.
Before entering vehicle, 371.
Before reaching station grounds, 361.
Before taking seat in vehicle, 378.
Boarding train at point where it has not stopped to receive pas-
sengers, 372.
On running board of street car, 377.
On train before its departure, 377.
On train too soon, 378.
One with street car transfer approaching. transfer car, 370.
One with street car transfer attempting to board transfer car,
Taking wrong route from depot to train, 368.
Upon station grounds, 362.
Creation of Relation.
Acceptance by carrier essential, 361.
Contract may be implied, 356.
Notice of intention to become passenger essential, 356.
Relation created by contract, 355.
Termination of Relation.
After leaving carrier's premises, 395.
Alighting to assist in starting vehicle, 399.
At depot after alighting from train, 390.
Attempt to regain status on same train or street car after ejec-
Carried beyond destination, 397.
Crossing track between train and depot, after alighting, 387.
Failure to alight at destination within reasonable time, 394.
Immediately after alighting from street car, 387.
Leaving moving train or street car, 385.
Leaving train at intermediate station with intention to return, 379.
Leaving train by wrong route, 389.
Leaving train to avoid imminent danger, 398.
One without stop-over privilege alighting at intermediate sta-
tion, 383.
Remaining on train with intention to travel beyond original des-
tination, 396.
Still passenger of car just left, in order to transfer, 385.
Stop-over privilege granted by conductor, 384.
Time and opportunity to leave carrier's premises, 390.
Time and opportunity to leave vehicle, 385.
Upon part of station premises not intended for use of passen-
gers, 393.
While on way to depot after alighting from train, 386.
42 R R R-51
See CHILDREN; CROSSINGS; LICENSEES; MASTER AND
SERVANT; STREET RAILWAYS.
Extent of possession adverse to railroad company. Delaware, etc.,
R. Co. v. Tobyhanna Co. (Pa.), 764.
Land outside of its right of way purchased by railroad for gen-
eral prospective railroad purposes is subject to limitations, and
title to it may be acquired as against the railroad by adverse
possession. Delaware, etc., R. Co. v. Tobyhanna Co. (Pa.), 764.
Part of railroad right of way so as to overcome claim to the land
by adverse possession, what constitutes. Delaware, etc., R. Co.
v. Tobyhanna Co. (Pa.), 764.
See CONNECTING CARRIERS; EVIDENCE; MASTER AND
SERVANT.
See CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS; LEASES AND RUN-
NING POWERS.
See CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS.
Beginning of Liability.
To make railroad liable as common carrier or warehouseman for
baggage lost, it must have been delivered to and accepted by
the carrier, either actively or constructively.
Williams v.
Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car.), 105.
Burden is on carrier to show legal excuse for failure to deliver
on demand baggage received by it, whether it was held as
carrier or warehouseman. Williams v. Southern Ry. Co. (N.
Car.), 105.
Passenger, prima facie entitled to recover of carrier for loss.
of property contained in suit case delivered to carrier's em-
ployee, is not precluded by the fact that the suit case was
neither locked nor fastened except by the catches when deliv-
ered to the employee. Hasbrouck v. New York Cent., etc.,
R. Co. (N. Y.), 675.
Degree of Care.
Where trainman takes passenger's suit case, which had not been
checked as baggage, for the purpose of assisting the passen-
ger off the train, the carrier's liability is only that of bailee.
Hasbrouck v. New York, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 675.
Carrier may bind itself by custom of treating baggage as re-
ceived when left at a given place, without other notice. Wil-
liams v. Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car.), 105.
If trunk was accepted by carrier for transportation on the fol-
lowing morning pursuant to custom, the carrier would be lia-
ble as such if the trunk was lost before it was forwarded, but
if it was only received for storage for an intending passen-
ger until he had it checked, the carrier would be only a bailee
for hire with the duty of exercising ordinary care for its
safety. Williams v. Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car.), 105.
Notice to carrier, necessity of giving. Williams v. Southern Ry.
Co. (N. Car.), 105.
Contract to transport passenger carries with it the duty of
transporting reasonable amount of hand baggage. Hasbrouck
v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 675.
Fact that schedule filed by carrier for public inspection, in com-
pliance with Interstate Commerce Act, provided that its liabil-
ity for baggage should be limited to $100 did not limit its
liability as against a passenger. Wells v. Great Northern Ry.
Co. (Ore.), 694.
Mere filing and posting by carrier, as part of its schedules for
passenger tariff, for transportation between states, of a limi-
tation of its liability to loss of baggage not exceeding certain
value, unless greater value is declared and excess charges paid
thereon at time of checking. Hooker v. Boston & M. R. R.
(Mass.), 665.
Provision in ticket limiting amount of liability applied only to
baggage regularly checked, and not to hand baggage retained
in possession of passenger. Hasbrouck v. New York Cent.,
etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 675.
Stipulation that baggage liability was limited to wearing ap-
parel only, not exceeding $100 in value, was not a stipulation
of the value of the goods shipped, but limited the liability to
$100 in any case. Wells v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (Ore.), 694.
Under common law carrier can limit liability for loss of bag-
gage only by express contract with passenger, or by his as-
sent to known regulation. Hooker v. Boston & M. R. R.
(Mass.), 665.
Failure of carrier, holding goods delivered by passenger and
liable for loss only in case of negligence, to deliver them on
demand is prima facie evidence of negligence. Hasbrouck v.
New York Cent., etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 675.
Rule for determining.
Co. (N. Y.), 675.
Hasbrouck v. New York Cent., etc., R.
Suit case which was not checked, and three rings, worth $1500,
etc., contained in it, were baggage. Hasbrouck v. New York,
etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 675.
Statute in question of New York, exempting carrier from dam-
age to property in transit in excess of $150, only applies where
the loss occurs in New York, and though the ticket was issued
therein, liability for loss occurring in Massachusetts must be
controlled by the laws of that state. Hasbrouck v. New York
Cent., etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 675.
See CONNECTING CARRIERS.
Estoppel of carrier issuing bill of lading for specified quantity of
freight to deny the receipt of such freight as against a consignee,
relying on the statement of the bill of lading and paying a draft
drawn on him by the shipper. Smith v. Southern Ry. Co. (S.
Car.), 169.
Admissibility of evidence of parol agreement to vary bill of lad-
ing. Sturges v. Detroit, etc., Ry. Co. (Mich.), 92.
Parol evidence to explain bills of lading, admissibility of.
Sturges v. Detroit, etc., Ry. Co. (Mich.), 92.
Notice to carrier not to deliver shipment without surrender of bill
of lading, sufficiency of. Sturges v. Detroit, etc., Ry. Co.
(Mich.), 92.
Carrier's local agent could bind the carrier not to deliver the
freight without surrender of bill of lading which shipper at-
tached to a draft upon the consignee. Sturges v. Detroit, etc.,
Ry. Co. (Mich.), 92.
Where a buyer from a consignee paid the latter's draft with
bill of lading attached, the bill of lading thereafter belonged to
the purchaser, though he did not receive it until subsequently.
Johnson & Co. v. Central Vermont Ry. Co. (Vt.), 628.
See BAGGAGE; BILLS OF LADING; CONNECTING CAR-
RIERS; JUDICIAL POWER; RAILROADS; STATIONS
AND DEPOTS.
CARRIERS OF LIVE STOCK.
Burden of Proof.
Where shipper accompanies shipment to give stock care and
attention. Westphalen v. Atlantic, etc., Ry. Co. (Iowa), 190.
Contributory Negligence.
Duty of shipper accompanying his stock to notify carrier that
his stock requires attention which he cannot give. West-
phalen v. Atlantic, etc., Ry. Co. (Iowa), 190.
Shipper's right to assume that an agent transacting business in
the office of the carrier where freight and passenger business
is transacted is the proper agent to notify that his stock
needs attention which he cannot give. Westphalen v. Atlantic,
etc., Ry. Co. (Iowa), 190.
In action for shrinkage of live stock during transportation, testi-
mony as to what similar cattle sold for on the market was
competent. Westphalen v. Atlantic, etc., Ry. Co. (Iowa), 190.
Evidence justified finding that shrinkage of live stock was due to
failure of connecting carrier to unload stock at shipper's request
at point it received the shipment from initial carrier. West-
phalen v. Atlantic, etc., Ry. Co. (Iowa), 190.
Appellant stockyards company was not guilty of "knowingly and
willfully" confining the cattle in question in cars in violation
of the federal 28-hour law. St. Joseph Stockyards Co. v. United
States (C. C. A.), 240.
CARRIERS OF LIVE STOCK-Continued.
Claims for loss or damage or detention must be presented within
ten days from date of unloading and before stock is mingled
with other stock, reasonableness of stipulation that. Smith
Meat Co. v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. (Ore.), 647.
Reasonableness of stipulation limiting value of horses to $20
a piece as basis of liability of carrier in case of their loss.
Bingham v. San Pedro, etc., R. Co. (Utah), 659.
Stipulation in contract of carriage of horses that, in case of in-
jury thereto, their value at place of shipment shall govern,
could not be enforced; it being impossible to segregate it
from an invalid stipulation limiting their value to $20 each.
Bingham v. San Pedro, etc., R. Co. (Utah), 659.
Garrier's duty to have agent at its office to whom information
may be given that stock is suffering for want of attention,
and that the cars must be transferred to suitable place for
unloading. Westphalen v. Atlantic, etc., Ry. Co. (Iowa), 190.
Notice to the passenger ticket agent in question was sufficient
to charge carrier with duty of transferring plaintiff's cars
to proper place for unloading the stock in order to give the
animals proper attention, though the carrier employed another
agent at the station who had charge of freight business.
Westphalen v. Atlantic, etc., Ry. Co. (Iowa), 190.
CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS.
See BAGGAGE; LEASES AND RUNNING POWERS; RE-
MOVAL OF CAUSE; SLEEPING CAR COMPANIES;
STATIONS AND DEPOTS; TICKETS AND FARES.
Where railroad conducts amusement park to increase its pas-
senger traffic, it is its duty to exercise reasonable care to see
that the premises shall be reasonably safe for visitors present,
whether an admission is charged or not. Turgeon v. Con-
necticut Co. (Conn.), 555.
Presumption of authority of traveling passenger agent of carrier
to cause arrest of passenger, and liability of carrier for his
wrongful exercise of such authority. Berry v. Carolina, C. &
O. Ry. (N. Car.), 151.
Railroad is liable for action of its auditor in charge of train
who falsely accused passenger of. stealing watch fob, and had
him illegally arrested; and petition alleging such facts need not
allege that the auditor in doing this was acting within scope of
his authority. Moore v. Louisville & A. Ry. Co. (Ark.), 127.
Assaults.
Passenger on pullman car assaulted and robbed, while asleep
in berth, both railroad and sleeping car company were liable
for negligent failure to protect her, where. Calder v. Southern
Ry. Co. (S. Car.), 295.
Railroad as carrier of passengers is insurer of their safety
against assaults by its servants, whether they are in charge
of the train or not. Moore v. Louisville & A. Ry. Co.
(Ark.), 127.
|