curring negligence. Accordingly, it is held that the negligence of a husband in driving on a railroad track in front of an approaching car or train is no bar to an action by his wife against the railroad company for injuries sustained by her from the collision which results. And the husband's negligence in driving over a defective way is held not to be imputable to her in bar of an action for damages brought by her against the municipality permitting such defects, although the journey was taken at her solicitation, if it is not shown that he was under her direction and control at the time. Upon the same principle the fact that the driver of a private vehicle is the son, daughter, brother, or other kindred of the passenger is held in no case-unless the further relation of servant and master, agent and principal, or joint adventurer exists-to make the passenger imputable with the driver's negligence.10 So it is held that a passenger on a skiff owned by her brother and rowed by his servant is not chargeable with the failure to give the fog signals required by the pilot rules.11

136. Carrier and Passenger.-In an English case (Thorogood v. Bryan, 8 C. B. 115, afterwards overruled in effect by The Bernina, 12 Prob. Div. 58, 13 App. Cas. 1), the court held that a passenger of a common carrier could not recover against a third person, whose negligence contributed to his injury, in the event that the negligence of the transporting carrier was a concurring cause of the injury; and following this authority, some of the American courts reached a like conclusion.12 The clear weight of modern authority, however, holds

7. Southern R. Co. v. King, 128 Ga. 383, 57 S. E. 687, 119 A. S. R. 390, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 829; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Creek, 130 Ind. 139, 29 N. E. 481, 14 L.R.Á. 733 and note; Reading Tp. v. Telfer, 57 Kan. 798, 48 Pac. 134, 57 A. S. R. 355; Louisville R. Co. v. McCarthy, 129 Ky. 814, 112 S. W. 925, 130 A. S. R. 494, 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) 230; Knoxville Ry., etc., Co. v. Vangilder, 132 Tenn. 487, 178 S. W. 1117, L.R.A.1916A 1111.

Notes: 110 A. S. R. 296; 22 L.R.A. 460; L.R.A.(N.S.) 659; L.R.A.1915A 764; 3 Ann. Cas. 704; 9 Ann. Cas. 408; Ann. Cas. 1912A 648.

See supra, par. 126.

8. Southern R. Co. v. King, 128 Ga. 383, 57 S. E. 687, 119 A. S. R. 390, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 829; Louisville R. Co. v. McCarthy, 129 Ky. 814, 112 S. W. 925, 130 A. S. R. 494, 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) 230.

R. C. L. Vol. XX.-11.

161

Note: 110 A. S. R. 296.

9. Reading Tp. v. Telfer, 57 Kan. 798, 48 Pac. 134, 57 A. S. R. 355.

10. Quinette v. Bisso, 136 Fed. 825, 69 C. C. A. 503, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 303; Anthony v. Kiefner, 96 Kan. 194, 150 Pac. 524, Ann. Cas. 1916E 264 and note, L.R.A.1915F 876; Noyes v. Boscawen, 64 N. H. 361, 10 Atl. 690, 10 A. S. R. 410; Duval v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 134 N. C. 331, 46 S. E. 750, 101 A. S. R. 830, 65 L.R.A, 722.

Notes: 110 A. S. R. 297; 1 L.R.A. 153; 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 662, 664 et seq.; L.R.A.1915A 765; 3 Ann. Cas. 704; 9 Ann. Cas. 408.

See supra, par. 127-129.

11. Quinette v. Bisso, 136 Fed. 825, 69 C. C. A. 503, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 303.

12. Brown v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 32 N. Y. 597, 88 Am. Dec. 353 and note.

Note: 3 L.R.A. (N.S.) 599 et seq.

13 and

that the carrier's negligence is not imputable to a passenger, that this is true regardless of the character of the vehicle, whether railway train,14 street car,15 coach, hack, omnibus, 16 boat, or other means of public conveyance.18 It is held that a passenger on a railroad train is not so identified with the proprietors of the train conveying him, or with their servants, as to be chargeable with their contributory negligence; and, therefore, that he may recover against the proprietors of another train for damages from a collision caused by their negligence, though there was such negligence on the part of the servants in charge of the train conveying him as would defeat an action by them or their master. 19 One who hires a liveryman and his vehicle to be driven to a stated destination, if injured by the negligence of a third person concurring with that of the driver, is not chargeable with the driver's negligence.20 When a person

13. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Markens, 88 Ga. 60, 13 S. E. 855, 14 L.R.A. 281; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Mochell, 193 Ill. 208, 61 N. E. 1028, 86 A. S. R. 318; Holzab v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 38 La. Ann. 185, 58 Am. Rep. 177; Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Hogeland, 66 Md. 149, 7 Atl. 105, 59 Am. Rep. 159; Bennett v. New Jersey R., etc., Co., 36 N. J. L. 225, 13 Am. Rep. 435; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Steinbrenner, 47 N. J. L. 161, 54 Am. Rep. 126; Chapman v. New Haven R. Co., 19 N. Y. 341, 75 Am. Dec. 344; St. Clair St. R. Co. v. Eadie, 43 Ohio St. 91, 1 N. E. 519, 54 Am. Rep. 802; Bunting v. Hogsett, 139 Pa. St. 363, 21 Atl. 31, 33, 34, 23 A. S. R. 192, 12 L.R.A. 268.

Notes: 8 L.R.A. 494; 9 L.R.A. 157; 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 600, 616 et seq.; 9 Ann. Cas. 408.

14. Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Shacklat, 105 Ill. 364, 44 Am. Rep. 791; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Mochell, 193 Ill. 208, 61 N. E. 1028, 86 A. S. R. 318; Holzab

(N.S.) 617; L.R.A. 1915A 761; 5 Ann. Cas. 164.

15. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Mochell, 193 Ill. 208, 61 N. E. 1028, 86 A. S. R. 318; Bennett v. New Jersey R., etc., Co., 36 N. J. L. 225, 13 Am. Rep. 435; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Pendry, 87 Tex. 553, 29 S. W. 1038, 47 A. S. R. 125. Note: 110 A. S. R. 290.

16. Little v. Hackett, 116 U. S. 366, 6 S. Ct. 391, 29 U. S. (L. ed.) 652; East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Markens, 88 Ga. 60, 13 S. E. 855, 14 L.R.A. 281; Beck v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 102 Mo. 544, 13 S. W. 1053, 9 L.R.A. 157 and note; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Steinbrenner, 47 N. J. L. 161, 54 Am. Rep. 126.

Notes: 110 A. S. R. 290; 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 621; 21 L.R.A. (N.S.) 81; L.R.A.1915A 761.

17. Notes: 110 A. S. R. 289; 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 622.

18. As to excursionists, see note, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 626.

19. Note: 5 Ann. Cas. 164.

99 Minn. 366, 109 N. W. 835, 116 A. 20. Cotton v. Willmar, etc., R. Co., S. R. 422, 9 Ann. Cas. 935, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 643 and note; Sluder v. St. Louis Transit Co., 189 Mo. 107, 88 S. W. 648, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 186. Compare Feeley v. Melrose, 205 Mass. 329, 91 N. E. 306, 137 A. S. R. 445, 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1156.

v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 38 La. Ann. 185, 58 Am. Rep. 177; Chapman v. New Haven R. Co., 19 N. Y. 341, 75 Am. Dec. 344; Colegrove v. New York, etc., R. Co., 20 N. Y. 492, 75 Am. Dec. 418; Transfer Co. v. Kelly, 36 Ohio St. 86, 38 Am. Rep. 558; Bunting v. Hogsett, 139 Pa. St. 363, 21 Atl. 31, 33, 34, 23 A. S. R. 192, 12 Notes: 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 623, 645; L.R.A. 268. L.R.A.1915A 761; 19 Ann. Cas. 1225. Notes: 110 A. S. R. 289; 8 L.R.A. See AUTOMOBILES, vol. 2, p. 1207.

employs a livery team with a driver to carry him to a specified place, the relation of master and servant does not exist between the pas senger and the driver. Nor are they engaged in a common employment or joint enterprise.1

137. Occupant and Driver of Private Vehicle.-According to some of the decisions, if a person voluntarily enters the private conveyance of another and is injured by the carelessness of the person in charge of the conveyance concurrently with the negligence of a third person, there can be no recovery against such third person. In support of this view it has been reasoned that one voluntarily in a private conveyance voluntarily trusts his personal safety in the conveyance to the person in control of it. Voluntary entrance into a private conveyance adopts the conveyance for the time being as one's own, and assumes the risk of the skill and care of the person guiding it. Pro hac vice, the master of a private yacht or the driver of a private carriage is accepted as agent by every person voluntarily committing himself to it. The weight of authority, however, supports the proposition that a person injured by the negligence of another and the contributory negligence of the driver of a private conveyance, with whom he is riding by invitation as companion or guest of the driver's employer, does not have such contributory negligence imputed to him. Nor does it make any difference that the injured person was

1. Cotton v. Willmar, etc., R. Co., 99 Minn. 366, 109 N. W. 835, 116 A. S. R. 422, 9 Ann. Cas. 935, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 643.

2. Mullen v. Owosso, 100 Mich. 103, 58 N. W. 663, 43 A. S. R. 436, 23 L.R.A. 693; Siegrist v. Arnot, 86 Mo. 200, 56 Am. Rep. 425; Whittaker v. Helena, 14 Mont. 124, 35 Pac. 904, 43 A. S. R. 621; Prideaux v. Mineral Point, 43 Wis. 513, 28 Am. Rep. 558; Lauson v. Fond Du Lac, 141 Wis. 57, 123 N. W. 629, 135 A. S. R. 30, 25 L.R.A.(N.S.) 40.

Notes: 110 A. S. R. 291; 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 639; 3 Ann. Cas. 705; 19 Ann. Cas. 1227.

3. Prideaux v. Mineral Point, 43 Wis. 513, 28 Am. Rep. 558.

4. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Lapsley, 51 Fed. 174, 4 U. S. App. 542, 2 C. C. A. 149, 16 L.R.A. 800; Dale v. Denver City Tramway Co., 173 Fed. 787, 97 C. C. A. 511, 19 Ann. Cas. 1223 and note; Bresee v. Los Angeles Traction Co., 149 Cal. 131, 85 Pac. 152, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1059; Colorado, etc., R. Co. v. Thomas, 33 Colo. 517, 81 Pac.

801, 3 Ann. Cas. 700 and note, 70 L.R.A. 681; Southern R. Co. v. King, 128 Ga. 383, 57 S. E. 687, 119 A. S. R. 390, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 829; Christy v. Elliott, 216 Ill. 31, 74 N. E. 1035, 108 A. S. R. 196, 3 Ann. Cas. 487, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 215; Brannen v. Kokomo, etc., Gravel Road Co., 115 Ind. 115, 17 N. E. 202, 7 A. S. R. 411; Knightstown v. Musgrove, 116 Ind. 121, 18 N. E. 452, 9 A. S. R. 827; Miller v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 128 Ind. 97, 27 N. E. 339, 25 A. S. R. 416; Nisbet v. Garner, 75 Ia. 314, 39 N. W. 516, 9 A. S. R. 486, 1 L.R.A. 152 and note; Reading Tp. v. Telfer, 57 Kan. 798, 48 Pac. 134, 57 A. S. R. 355; Leavenworth v. Hatch, 57 Kan. 57, 45 Pac. 65, 57 A. S. R. 309; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. State, 79 Md. 335, 29 Atl. 518, 47 A. S. R. 415; Shultz v. Old Colony St. R. Co., 193 Mass. 309, 79 N. E. 73, 118 A. S. R. 502, 9 Ann. Cas. 402 and note, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 597; Hampel v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 138 Mich. 1, 100 N. W. 1002, 110 A. S. R. 275 and note; Follman v. Mankato, 35 Minn. 522, 29

riding uninvited and without the knowledge of the driver of the vehicle. The rule.applies to situations of every sort, though it finds most frequent application where the negligence of the driver in the management of the vehicle brings the conveyance into collision with the car or train of a railway corporation, or fails to avoid defects in a highway for which a municipality is liable. If the plaintiff would recover, however, he must be prepared to show that the defendant was negligent concurrently with the driver. It has been held that a passenger in a wagon, who is injured by its being overturned by the driver's attempt to cross from one public road to another a few feet distant without examining the character of land between them, cannot hold the city liable for the injury on the theory that it was negligent in permitting a difference in the level of the roads to remain, since the injury is due to the negligence of the driver." An application of the same principle is seen in the right of recovery of a guest against his host. Are the two so identified that recovery will not be permitted for failure by the host to exercise that ordinary care, on the theory that the negligence was as much imputable to the guest as to the host? Recovery has been generally permitted under

N. W. 317, 59 Am. Rep. 340; Loso v. Lancaster County, 77 Neb. 466, 109 N. W. 752, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 618 and note; Noyes v. Boscawen, 64 N. H. 361, 10 Atl. 690, 10 A. S. R. 410; Robinson v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 66 N. Y. 11, 23 Am. Rep. 1; Masterson v. New York Cent., etc. R. Co., 84 N. Y. 247, 38 Am. Rep. 510; Duval v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 134 N. C. 331, 46 S. E. 750, 101 A. S. R. 830, 65 L.R.A. 722; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Bell (Okla.) 159 Pac. 336, L.R.A. 1917A 543; Carlisle v. Brisbane, 113 Pa. St. 544, 6 Atl. 372, 57 Am. Rep. 483 and note; Crescent Tp. v. Anderson, 114 Pa. St. 643, 8 Atl. 379, 60 Am. Rep. 367; Dean v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 129 Pa. St. 514, 18 Atl. 718, 15 A. S. R. 733, 6 L.R.A. 43.

Notes: 9 L.R.A. 157; L.R.A.1915A 763; L.R.A.1915B 953.

See AUTOMOBILES, vol. 2, p. 1207. 5. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Wright, 54 Ohio St. 181, 43 N. E. 688, 32 L.R.A. 340.

6. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Lapsley, 51 Fed. 174, 4 U. S. App. 542, 2 C. C. A. 149, 16 L.R.A. 800; Bresee v. Los Angeles Traction Co., 149 Cal. 131, 85 Pac. 152, 5 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1059;

Southern R. Co. v. King, 128 Ga. 383, 57 S. E. 687, 119 A. S. R. 390, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 829; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. State, 79 Md. 335, 29 Atl. 518, 47 A. S. R. 415; Hampel v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 138 Mich. 1, 100 N. W. 1002, 110 A. S. R. 275 and note; Robinson v. New York Cent. R. Co., 66 N. Y. 11, 23 Am. Rep. 1; Duval v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 134 N. C. 331, 46 S. E. 750, 101 A. S. R. 830, 65 L.R.A. 722; Cincinnati St. R. Co. v. Wright, 54 Ohio St. 181, 43 N. E. 688, 32 L.R.A. 340.

7. Albion v. Hetrick, 90 Ind. 545, 46 Am. Rep. 230; Nesbit v. Garner, 75 Ia. 314, 39 N. W. 516, 9 A. S. R. 486, 1 L.R.A. 152; Leavenworth v. Hatch, 57 Kan. 57, 45 Pac. 65, 57 A. S. R. 309; Reading Tp. v. Telfer, 57 Kan. 798, 48 Pac. 134, 57 A. S. R. 355; Follman v. Mankato, 35 Minn. 522, 29 N. W. 317, 59 Am. Rep. 340; Crescent Tp. v. Anderson, 114 Pa. St. 643, 8 Atl. 379, 60 Am. Rep. 367.

8. As to the proximate cause of an injury, see supra, par. 113-118.

9. Nelson v. Spokane, 45 Wash. 31, 87 Pac. 1048, 122 A. S. R. 881, 13 Ann. Cas. 280, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 636.

such circumstances; and, while it has been held that the owner of an automobile who lends his car and driver to a friend is not liable for injury sustained through the driver's negligence, such decisions turn on the question of the measure of duty owed rather than on any question of imputed negligence.10 It is also held that a guest in an automobile who has no control over it and takes no part in the operation of it is not liable to a third person for injury sustained through the negligence of the driver in the operation of the machine." Though negligenco will not be imputed to a guest it does not follow that he cannot be held negligent independently of imputation. One riding in a car driven by another, though a mere guest and having no control over the person driving the car, may be guilty of such negligence as to preclude a recovery for a personal injury resulting from negligent operation of the car, e. g., if the driver, from intoxication, is in a condition which renders him incapable of operating the car with proper diligence and skill, and this fact is known or palpably apparent to one entering the car, entering or remaining in it may be held negligence on the part of the guest; 12 and, likewise, a guest may be held negligent who consents to stay in an automobile when the driver attempts to run it after dark without, light on an unfamiliar road.13

VIII. ACTIONS

Generally

138. Persons Entitled to Sue.-As a rule, any person who has sustained an injury as the proximate result of another's negligence 14 is entitled to maintain against the delinquent an action for the damages sustained by him, the rules as to necessary and proper parties being. those applicable to actions generally.15 The doctrine of the civil law and the ecclesiastical and admiralty courts that an unborn child may be regarded as in esse for some purposes, when for its benefit, is a legal fiction, which has not been indulged in by the courts of common law to the extent of allowing an action by an infant for injuries occasioned before its birth; 16 for, it has been said, if the action can be main

10. Perkins v. Galloway, 194 Ala. 265, 69 So. 875, L.R.A.1916E 1190 and note; Beard v. Klusmeier, 158 Ky. 153, 164 S. W. 319, Ann. Cas. 1915D 342, 50 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1100 and note.

11. Wilkerson v. Myatt-Dicks Motor Co., 136 La. 977, 68 So. 96, L.R.A. 1915E 439 and note.

12. Lynn v. Goodwin, 170 Cal. 112, 148 Pac. 927, L.R.A.1915E 588; Powell v. Berry, 145 Ga. 696, 89 S. E. 753,

L.R.A.1917A 306 and note.

13. Rebillard v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 216 Fed. 503, 133 C. C. A. 9, L.R.A.1915B 953.

14. See PROXIMATE CAUSE.
15. See PARTIES.

16. Allaire v. St. Luke's Hospital, 184 Ill. 359, 56 N. E. 638, 75 A. S. R. 176, 48 L.R.A. 225; Dietrich v. Northampton, 138 Mass. 14, 52 Am. Rep. 242.