amounts to prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the carrier." Indiana Union Traction Co. v. Scribner, 47 Ind. App. 621, 93 N. E. 1014 (1911).

B. Fall from chair due to collision in fog.

The plaintiff was a passenger on a steamboat belonging to the defendant, which shortly after leaving the wharf collided with a ferryboat owned and operated by a different concern. At the time of the collision, the plaintiff was sitting on a camp stool on one of the decks of the steamer. The collision threw her over the stool on which she was sitting and caused the injuries in suit. The captain of the ferryboat stated that when he entered the bank of fog, his boat was running about 4 miles an hour; that he heard the fog horn of a boat coming towards him; and when about 400 or 500 feet up the river from him blew two whistles, meaning that the boat should pass him on the left side. The rules of the road were the same as the navigation rules of the river, but there was an exception providing that boats by giving two blasts upon the whistle might pass on the opposite side if they were so far from meeting end on end that there was no chance of collision. The captain of the ferryboat further testified that he gave the signals required by this rule, but received no answer; whereupon he stopped his engines, gave a danger signal,

and started his boat moving backwards. Instead of passing him on the right or starboard side, as the signal from the ferryboat indicated that it should, the steamer did not vary from its course, and struck the ferryboat on the port side with great force. From a judgment on the verdict of $2,500 in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appealed. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that unusual caution was required of those in charge of vessels passing through a fog, and that there was sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant's servants to warrant the submission of the case to the jury. Fletcher V. Wilmington Steamboat Co., 261 Pa. 1, 104 Atl. 60 (1918).

C. Exposure on disabled ship.

The defendant company entered into an arrangement with an engineer and a navigator to repair a launch and then make trips in the Alaska district, with a division of profits so that one third should go to each. The engineer advertised for passengers and the plaintiff bought his ticket from the company pursuant to instructions given in the advertisement. A representative of the company took the launch on a trial trip and it was then discovered that the feed pipes were leaking and that the soft solder which was used on them was insufficient for the purpose. Shortly after putting out to sea, the feed pipes began to leak badly, and the engines had to be stop

ped. The water pipes then froze. They were thawed out, and another start made, only to have the feed pipes once more begin leaking. Finally, the water pipes froze so that nothing could be done with them. The engine as a result could not be made to work. The boat became unmanageable and was caught in the ice. With few provisions and the intense cold, the plaintiff and the one other passenger who was plaintiff in a companion suit suffered serious injury before a landing was effected some four or five days later. The trial resulted in a verdict by a jury and judgment for the plaintiff, from which the defendant brought error. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the defendant company was engaged in carrying the plaintiff as a common carrier, and that its negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. North Coast Lighterage Co. v. Greenwood, 89 C. C. A. 65, 162 Fed. 25 (1908); North Coast Lighterage Co. v. Sullivan, 89 C. C. A. 68, 162 Fed. 28 (1908).

D. Exposure after leaving ship.

The libelant, a farm hand, after being paid off by his employer took passage upon the vessel in question, and during the night bunked in the hold, taking off his coat, trousers, and shoes. Through the negligence of the crew, the vessel ran upon a rock, and the libelant, awakened by the shock, found a heavy volume of water rushing into the cabin. In a dazed condition and

greatly frightened, he ran to the stairs and up to the deck, leaving his belongings, including at least $300 in money, behind him. Ten minutes later he, still unclad, got into a small boat with four other passengers and the boat was lowered by the captain without there being any member of the crew therein to manage the same. The boat was afloat for a number of hours before a landing was effected during which time the libelant became chilled and exhausted. The court found that those in charge of the ship were negligent in permitting the libelant to embark in the small boat without a competent seaman in charge, and though the claimant contended that he had $800 in his possession at the time of the accident which was left on board the ship, the court was of the opinion that it was approximately $300 but awarded $800 in satisfaction of his pain, suffering and actual financial loss. The Erastus Corning, 158 Fed. 452 (1908).

III. Assault or false imprisonment.

A. Captain.

A large number of the second cabin passengers on one of the defendant's transatlantic vessels, among whom was the plaintiff, became dissatisfied with the food furnished to them, and claimed improper attention to their needs and comfort on the part of the ship's officers. A letter was framed for the purpose of complaint and pub

lication on arrival at port of destination, and the plaintiff undertook to get signatures to it, even from first class passengers. Having heard that a certain first-class passenger would sign the complaint, the plaintiff had gone into the music room of the firstclass quarters and had given the letter to the party he intended to see, when the captain entered, took the letter, and ordered the plaintiff to proceed to the quarters assigned to second-class passengers. The plaintiff refused to go until his letter was returned to him which the captain refused, and on the plaintiff's continued refusal to leave, the captain struck him and had him forcibly removed to his stateroom and there confined until arrival at port. The trial court dismissed the complaint and the plain tiff appealed. The court reversed judgment and granted a new trial. As the court pointed out, whenever the captain of a vessel causes the arrest of a passenger, the question arises of whether there was a necessity for the exercise of such authority and whether if there was such a necessity, it was exercised beyond what was necessary. These questions, when presented on conflicting proof, the court said, become questions for the jury. Bennett v. Austro-Americana S. S. Co., 161 N. Y. App. Div. 753, 147 N. Y. Supp. 193 (1914).

B. Watchman.

1. After altercation.

The plaintiff was a passenger on a vessel of the defendant company, which

was so greatly overcrowded that staterooms could not be provided for all of the passengers. To meet the situation the steamship company provided cots or mattresses to be laid on the floor of the saloon. When the stewards came around to place the mattresses the libelant was seated on a settee having his suitcase with him. On being asked to move that a mattress might be placed, he refused, alleging that he was a first-class passenger and entitled to a seat. Later, a second watchman asked the libelant to move and on his refusal cursed and abused him, caught him by the collar and dragged him to the stairway leading to the lower deck, and down the steps, finally taking him to a freight room and locking him up. The libelant, upon thus being put under arrest, asked to see the captain, but this request was refused on the ground that the captain was asleep, which the evidence showed was not the case. Libelant was confined on the freight deck under arrest and guard for about an hour and then allowed to return to the saloon deck, where he resumed the seat formerly occupied by him, and remained until the end of the voyage. A libel suit having been instituted to recover damages for the false arrest and imprisonment of the libelant, the court gave a decree in favor of the libelant for $1,000 as punitive damages. On appeal this decree was affirmed after reduction to $500, the court pointing out that the power to arrest passengers was given to the captain of a vessel to ex

ercise in very rare instances, and if this power could be delegated at all, it should be delegated only to a person of character, intelligence, and good judgment, and not to a man, who as here, had until recently been only a structural iron worker without such characteristics. The court added: "Arrests ought never to be made, unless the ship, or other passengers, are endangered, without the captain being called upon to determine the necessity therefor." Ragland v. Norfolk & Washington Steamboat Co., 163 Fed. 376 (1908). Modified and aff'd 94 C. C. A. 562, 169 Fed. 286 (1909).

2. Night attack upon woman in stateroom.

The plaintiff, a widow traveling alone, occupied a so-called "demiluxe" cabin on one of the defendant's transatlantic vessels. The adjoining cabin was not occupied during the voyage. Both cabins had doors opening into the corridor and were also connected by a door through the partition. The door opening into the corridor had a lock and bolt on the inside; the partition door had a lock and bolt on each side which the plaintiff examined upon coming aboard and found bolted and apparently locked. No stateroom keys were issued to passengers or anyone else, but the rooms were divided into groups in charge of a steward who had exclusive control of a pass key which controlled all of the locks in his particu

lar section. It appeared that the pass key to the section in which the plaintiff's room was located had been lost on the preceding voyage and never recovered but a new one had been supplied. There had been no rearrangement of the locks so as to prevent the lost key from fitting them. As there was only the one key to each section of rooms which was in the possession of a steward, the door of any stateroom was left open when the occupant was out, and closed and locked upon the inside when in. Stationed at a point in the corridor where an unobstructed view could be had to the entrance of all the rooms in this particular section was a watchman, who responded to the call of any passenger who rang a bell placed there. Lights in the corridor were kept buring night and day, and the switch thereto was so located that the watchman on duty could see if anyone interfered therewith. The plaintiff suffered from seasickness and remained in her room until the afternoon of the last day out, when she was out upon the deck for a few hours. At night she retired to her stateroom, locked the door, and about 2:30 a. m. was aroused by a noise around the door to the adjoining room. She noticed the lights in the corridor were out, and at once turned on the lights in her stateroom. At that moment, the partition door to the next room opened, and the day watchman, in a black mask entered and assaulted the plaintiff. A struggle of several minutes ensued before the night watch

man, who was evidently asleep at his post, heard the screams of the plaintiff and rushed to her rescue. The day watchman had evidently found the lost key to that section of staterooms, entered the plaintiff's stateroom during the afternoon when she was out, and unlocked the bolted door to the adjoining room. Then during the night he switched off the lights while the night watchman was asleep, and entered the plaintiff's stateroom through the adjoining room with the aid of the lost pass key. An action for damages resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $12,500, from which the defendant brought error. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that while the defendant's system for the protection of its sleeping passengers was ample when it worked, the negligence of the night watchman in going to sleep, not noticing that the lights in the corridor were turned off and not seeing the assailant enter the adjoining cabin, was such as to make his master responsible for the resulting injuries. The court further observed that the failure of the defendant to change the locks so that the lost key would not open them was negligence, but that the failure of the plaintiff to observe that the partition door had been unlocked on the evening of the accident was not contributory negligence, since she made such an examination upon her original entry into the stateroom. Compagnie Générale Transatlantique v. Rivers, 127 C. C. A. 580, 211 Fed. 294 (1914).

C. Waiter.

The plaintiff, a passenger on one of the defendant's vessels, had some words in the first-class smoking room of the ship with a steerage waiter, and the altercation was followed by an assault on the part of the employee. The combatants were separated by the purser, the employee was ordered below, and the plaintiff admonished to go below and dress his wounds. The plaintiff started to go out of the saloon, when he was met by the employee, who had threatened to return and "get" him, and was assaulted again, this time with an iron rod about two feet long and of the size of a man's finger. An action for damages for the injuries so sustained resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed, and contending that it was not liable unless negligent in affording protection to the plaintiff after the assault was made. The court affirmed the judgment, pointing out that "As long as respondent was a passenger on appellant's ship, appellant owed him a duty of absolute protection from the assaults and aggressions of its servants, and the rule is well-nigh universal that the carrier cannot plead as a defense that the servant acted outside of the scope of his employment." Marks v. Alaska S. S. Co., 71 Wash. 167, 127 Pac. 1101 (1912).

D. Deck hand.

Plaintiff was assaulted by a deck hand while a passenger on a boat of