ACCIDENTS.
See CROSSINGS.
ACCIDENTS ON TRACK.
See CHILDREN; LICENSEES; MASTER AND SERVANT;
STREET RAILWAYS; TRESPASSERS.
Sitting on rail against wheel of one of a string of freight cars
on switch, while waiting for passenger train to arrive to
meet a passenger. Hammers v. Colorado, etc., R. Co. (La.),
In action for injuries sustained by plaintiff while sitting on rail
against freight car on switch, by the backing of an engine
against the car, the evidence did not show negligence on part
of railroad. Hammers v. Colorado, etc., R. Co. (La.), 414.
Last Clear Chance.
Plaintiff's negligence in sitting on rail against wheel of freight
car on switch was concurrent with any negligence of the rail-
road in backing an engine against the cars without warning,
SO as to prevent application of last clear chance doctrine.
Hammers v. Colorado, etc., R. Co. (La.), 414.
Duty of trainmen to look under stationary freight cars
switch before moving them, to ascertain whether some one is
sitting on the rails. Hammers v. Colorado, etc., R. Co. (La.),
414.
See CARRIERS; MASTER AND SERVANT.
Evidence.
Declarations of agent are not admissible to prove his agency.
Southern Ry. Co. v. Grant (Ga.), 263.
Fact that defendant railroad company acting on recommendation
of the same physician, employed by it to render first medical
attention to persons injured in the operation of the railroad,
who, as claimed by plaintiff, incurred the account with plaintiff
on which the present suit is brought, had on previous occasion
paid to plaintiff the board of a person injured by the defendant,
was an immaterial one, and proof thereof was inadmissible.
Southern Ry. Co. v. Grant (Ga.), 263.
Physician employed by railroad company to give first medical at-
tention to persons injured in the operation of the railroad had
not implied authority to bind the company by contracting with
hotel keeper to furnish, on its account, board and lodging for
such injured persons, or for those in attendance on them. South-
ern Ry. Co. v. Grant (Ga.), 263.
BILLS OF LADING.
See COMMON CARRIERS.
Bill of lading is a written acknowledgment of the receipt of goods
BILLS OF LADING-Continued.
and an agreement to transport and deliver them at specified
place to a person named or his order. Illinois Match Co. v.
Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. (Ill.), 545.
Right of transferee of bill of lading. National Bank v. J. H.
Everett & Son (Ga.), 569.
Operation of street cars over county bridge is a use different in
kind and extent from that of the general public, for which
county may exact rent, including therein reasonable proportion
of costs incurred for necessary repairs to the bridge. Beaver
County v. Beaver Valley Traction Co. (Pa.), 19.
See BILLS OF LADING; COMMON CARRIERS; INTER-
STATE COMMERCE; RAILROAD COMMISSIONS
CARRIERS OF LIVE STOCK.
See COMMON CARRIERS.
Where shipper, because of a washout, assented to a change of
route and a diversion to another point, he was estopped from
claiming damages arising out of such diversion. Midland Val-
ley R. Co. v. Ezell (Okla.), 557.
Notice of claim for loss of or injury to stock as soon as possi-
ble, etc., does not violate section 1128 of Comp. Laws Okl.
1909, stipulation in shipping contract requiring. Midland Val-
ley R. Co. v. Ezell (Okla.), 557.
Petition which fails to allege compliance with conditions of con-
tract requiring notice of claim of damages or waiver thereof
is insufficient to state cause of action. Midland Valley R.
Co. v. Ezell (Okla.), 557.
CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS.
See TICKETS AND FARES; TRESPASSERS.
Conductor must keep vigilant supervision over drunken and
quarrelsome passenger to prevent him from injuring or an-
noying fellow passengers, and to prevent injury or annoyance
to them he should refuse to further carry such passenger.
Kline v. Milwaukee Elect. Ry. & L. Co. (Wis.), 218.
Drunken passenger's assault on fellow passenger, liability of
carrier on account of. Kline v. Milwaukee Elect. Ry. & L.
Co. (Wis.), 218.
If injury to passenger inflicted by fellow passenger could not
have been foreseen, or was not the reasonable or probable
consequence of the omission of conductor to eject the of
fender from the train, the carrier would not be liable. Kline
v. Milwaukee Elect. Ry. & L. Co. (Wis.), 218.
In action for injuries inflicted by passenger upon fellow passen-
ger, the evidence justified a finding that the conductor had
knowledge or opportunity to know that some injury was threat-
ened, and that by his prompt intervention he might have pre-
vented or mitigated it, authorizing recovery against carrier.
Kline v. Milwaukee Elect. Ry. & L. Co. (Wis.), 218.
CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS-Continued.
One entering subway station of elevated railway company and
paying his fare is unlawfully molested by company's servants
by physical restraint, while passing through the turnstile_to
take car, carrier is liable where. Horgan v. Boston Elev. Ry.
Co. (Mass.), 117.
Protect passengers from fellow passengers, scope of conductor's
duty to. Kline v. Milwaukee Elect. Ry. & L. Co. (Wis.), 218.
Assumption of risks by passengers riding on train not adapted to
passenger service. Lawrence v. Kaul Lumber Co. (Ala.), 141.
Burden of Proof.
In action against street railway for death caused by collision of
car with plaintiff's intestate while he was awaiting the car to
take passage thereon, plaintiff assumes burden of showing de-
fendant's negligence and her intestate's freedom from contrib-
utory negligence. Kruck v. Connecticut Co. (Conn.), 462.
Plaintiff must prove that he was a passenger when injured though
during the trial there is no suggestion of a denial of the fact.
Birmingham, etc., Co. v. McCurdy (Ala.), 516.
Contributory Negligence.
Alighting from moving train.
Southern Ry. Co. v. Morgan
Boarding moving street car. Nocita v. Omaha, etc., Ry. Co.
(Neb.), 440.
In action for injuries to passenger while alighting from moving
train, evidence required grant of new trial because weight of
the evidence supported plea of contributory negligence.
Southern Ry. Co. v. Morgan (Ala.), 168.
Question for jury whether employee of another railroad killed
on defendant's tie train, on which he was making trip to in-
spect ties bought by his employer, was guilty of contributory
negligence in riding on top of the train with the foreman in
charge. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Kitchen (Ark.), 178.
Question of passenger's contributory negligence in going upon
platform of vestibuled car of moving train was for jury.
Kearney v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. (Ore.), 172.
At common law carrier owes passengers utmost degree of care,
regardless of the character of the car or train, except as to
trains not intended for passengers. White v. Illinois Cent.
Care required of railroads for the safety of their passengers is
the highest degree of care which a prudent and cautious man
would exercise, and which is reasonably consistent with their
mode of conveyance and the practical operation of their roads.
St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Purifoy (Ark.), 526.
Carrier is not an insurer of the safety of his passengers. Parker
v. Boston & M. R. R. (Vt.), 153.
Carrier of passengers must exercise the care of a careful man
in the same circumstances. Parker v. Boston & M. R. R.
(Vt.), 153.
Due passenger riding on freight or logging train. Lawrence v.
Kaul Lumber Co. (Ala.), 141.
Due to passenger by carrier who is not a common carrier of
passengers. Lawrence v. Kaul Lumber Co. (Ala.), 141.
Duties and liabilities of carrier where street car passenger was
injured in attempting to alight, by his feet becoming entangled
in the end of trolly rope lying on floor of car. Denver City
Tramway Co. v. Hills (Colo.), 505.
CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS-Continued.
Instruction that carrier must exercise the utmost caution of a
very careful and prudent man is erroneous. Parker v. Boston
& M. R. R. (Vt.), 153.
Passenger, while riding on train, was struck by rock which rolled
from mountain side, liability of carrier where. Le Deau v.
Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (Idaho), 232.
Required of street railway as affected by physical condition of
passenger. Louisville Ry. Co. v. Wilder (Ky.), 148.
Required of those in charge of street car to discover passengers
laboring under disabilities and to exercise toward such the de-
gree of care their respective situations and conditions demand.
Louisville Ry. Co. v. Wilder (Ky.), 148.
Rule of law requiring railroad companies to exercise extraordi-
nary diligence in protecting their passengers from injury ap-
plies as well to the construction and maintenance of tracks as
to the operation of cars thereon. Wadley Southern Ry. Co. v.
Kennedy (Ga.), 489.
Street railway must exercise strictest care not only in carrying
passenger, but also in setting him down. Denver City Tram-
way Co. v. Hills (Colo.), 505.
In action for injuries to passenger by derailment of train, the
issue of carrier's negligence was for jury. Parker v. Boston
Evidence showed that jar of train threw plaintiff forward, and
that he fell off platform through open vestible door. Kearney
v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. (Ore.), 172.
Evidence was sufficient to go to jury on question of negligence
in leaving door of vestibule of car open. Kearney v. Oregon
R. & Nav. Co. (Ore.), 172.
Vestibule on railroad car with the doors closed cannot be said
as matter of law to be dangerous place; and to leave the doors
open when the cars are in rapid motion is an omission justify-
ing an inference of negligence. Kearney v. Oregon R. & Nav.
Co. (Ore.), 172.
Assault committed by conductor while ejecting person refusing
to pay fare, liability of railroad on account of. Lugner v. Mil-
waukee, etc., Co. (Wis.), 186.
Conductor's conduct was one continuous wrongful action, ren-
dering carrier liable, though he, in fact, made no motion to
grab the boy he was attempting to eject from the rear window
in question. Lugner v. Milwaukee, etc., Co. (Wis.), 186.
Passenger ejected from Pullman train for refusal to pay full
berth rate cannot recover on account of the porter's mistake in
excluding from the train a fellow passenger who might have
shared the berth and the charge therefor, the ejected passen-
ger having relied on unreasonableness of the rule, and not on
the misinformation given by the porter. Doherty v. Northern
Pac. Ry. Co. (Mont.), 210.
Railroad can expel passenger from car in which are provided
accommodations for which he has not paid, if it is done with-
out unnecessary force. Doherty v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
(Mont.), 210.
Claim agent's reports as hearsay. Denver City Tramway Co. v.
Hills (Colo.), 505.
CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS-Continued.
Condition of track was properly considered in determining
whether the mode of running the train was negligence, in ac-
tion for injuries to passenger by derailment. Parker v. Boston
& M. R. R. (Vt.), 153.
Similar accident in action for injuries to street car passenger by
being_thrown from car while attempting to board it. Denver
City Tramway Co. v. Cowan (Colo.), 472.
That, just after the derailment, the ties were broken and cut up,
was admissible to show condition of the ties before the acci-
dent. Parker v. Boston & M. R. R. (Vt.), 153.
Carrier may not escape liability for false imprisonment of pas-
senger, by the fact that its servants were acting as special po-
lice officers, under Mass. St. 1898, c. 282, § 2. Horgan v. Bos-
ton Elev. Ry. Co. (Mass.), 117.
Where servant of carrier, acting as special police officer, under
Mass. St. 1898, c. 282, is not liable to one for false imprisonment
or for assault and battery, or has been released from liability,
the carrier is exonerated from liability. Horgan v. Boston
Elev. Ry. Co. (Mass.), 117.
Question of carrier's negligence was for jury where the evidence
was that the ice on the car step in question had accumulated
on a prior day, or at such an hour that proper inspection would
have discovered it. Sutton v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.), 229.
Last Clear Chance.
Authorize recovery for injury to passenger on theory of negli-
gence of street railway supervening contributory negligence of
plaintiff's intestate, what must appear to. Kruck v. Connecti-
cut Co. (Conn.), 462.
Evidence was insufficient to show negligence of motorman after
he knew or ought to have known of the danger of plaintiff's
intestate. Kruck v. Connecticut Co. (Conn.), 462.
Evidence was insufficient to show that failure of motorman to
turn off searchlight, when he saw or ought to have seen plain-
tiff's intestate in the street intending to board the car, was
negligence. Kruck v. Connecticut Co. (Conn.), 462.
Cal. Civ. Code, § 2175, prevents carrier from contracting against
liability for the character of negligence referred to in the stat-
ute, even as against gratuitous passenger. Walther v. South-
ern Pac. Co. (Cal.), 466.
Exempt from liability for negligence causing injury to gratuitous
passenger,_validity of stipulation purporting to. Walther v.
Southern Pac. Co. (Cal.), 466.
Exempt from liability for negligence causing injury to paying
passenger,_validity of stipulation purporting to. Walther .
Southern Pac. Co. (Cal.), 466.
"Freight train," within Miss. Code 1906, § 4054, what constitutes.
White . Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Miss.), 520.
"Mixed or accommodation train," within certain statute, what
constitutes. White v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Miss.), 520.
Repeal in question of certain statutory provisions, prohibiting
common carriers from limiting their liability for certain de-
grees of negligence, cannot effect the construction of the words
"gross negligence" as used in section 2175 of Cal. Civ. Code.
Walther . Southern Pac. Co. (Cal.), 466.
|