Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

15 European etc. Rauw. Co. v. Poor, 59 Me. 277.

16 Blake v. Buffalo Creek etc. R. R. Co. 56 N. Y. 485; and compare Hoyle v. Plattsburg etc. R. R. Co. 54 id. 314; 13 Am. R. 595; Covington etc. R. R. Co. v. Bowler, 9 Bush, 468.

17 Gilman etc. R. R. Co. v. Kelly, 77 Ill. 426.

18 Union Pacif. R. R. Co. v. Durant, 3 Dill. 343.

19 Union Pacif. R. R. Co. v. Durant, 3 Dill. 343.

20 See Meador v. Railroad Co. 50 Tex. 87; Allen v. Willard, 57 Pa. St. 374; Haas r. Phila. etc. Steamship Co. 88 id. 269; 32 Am. R. 462.

21 McCafferty v. Spuyten Duyvil etc. R. R. Co. 61 N. Y. 178; 48 Hów. 44; 19 Am. R. 267.

22 Cunningham v. International R. R. Co. 51 Tex. 503; 32 Am. R. 632; Union Pacif. R. R. Co. v. Hause, 1 Wy. Ter. 27: Meyer v. Midland Pacif. R. R. Co. 2 Neb. 319; Kansas etc. Railw. Co. 18 Kan. 34. See also Thompson v. New Orleans etc. Railw. 10 La. An. 403; Carman v. Steu benville etc. Railw. 4 Ohio St. 3599; Kansas etc. Railw. Co. v. Fitzsimmons, 18 Kan. 34; Shoemaker v. Kingsbury, 12 Wall. 369; Railroad Co. v. Hanning, 15 id. 649.

23 Metz v. Buffalo etc. R. R. Co. 58 N. Y. 61; 17 Am. R. 201. Com. pare Meara v. Holbrook, 20 Ohio St. 137; 5 Am. R. 633; Henderson v. Walker, 55 Ga. 481; Cardot v. Barney, 63 N. Y. 281; 20 Ain. R. 533.

§ 257. Are common carriers.-Railway companies are common carriers; and the same is true of express companies, as their business is ordinarily conducted.2 In consideration of its franchise and right of way, a railway company owes to the state the duty of impartially receiving and transporting merchandise offered by all persous, to the extent of the quantity ordinarily sent over the road. But it is not bound to receive merchandise for transportation which, by reason of an unusual and unexpected pressure of business, it cannot transport promptly; and although it cannot, in general, discriminate between persons, it is not bound to receive an unusual number of passengers, beyond the number it might reasonably be required to provide for.7 And a railway company may limit its liability as a common carrier, by a special contract to that effect; 8 provided such stipulation for exemption from responsibility be just and reasonable in the eye of the law.9 In New York, a railway company may stipulate for exemption from liability for losses occurring even through its own negligence or that of its servants. 10 And such was the English rule until modified by statute.

But the prevailing doctrine in the United

States is, that the company cannot lawfully limit its liability, by notice or special contract, so as to exonerate itself from responsibility for its own negligence or misfeasance, or that of its servants and agents; 12 though it may lawfully limit its common law liability as insurer. 18

1 Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Thompson, 19 Ill. 578; and see Pallentine v. North Mö. R. R. Co. 40 Mo. 491; Michaels v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co. 30 N. Y. 564; Fuller v. Naugatuck R. R. 21 Conn. 557; Machee v. London etc Railw. Co. 2 Ex. 415.

2 U. S. Express Co. v. Backman, 28 Ohio St. 144; Buckland v. Adams Express Co. 97 Mass. 124; Southern Express Co. v. McVeigh, 20 Gratt. 264; Southern Express Co. v. Crook, 44 Ala. 468; Southern Express Co. v. Newby, 86 Ga. 669. Express companies will be treated as common carriers, notwithstanding the declaration in their bills of lading, etc., that they are not to be deemed such: Bank of Ky. v. Adams Express Co. 93 U. S. 174; Christenson v. Am. Express Co. 15 Minn. 270.

3 Union etc. Co. v. Erie Railw. Co. 37 N. J. L. 23; Rogers Locomotive etc. Works v. Erie Railw. Co. 20 N. J. Eq. 379; Keeney v. Grand Trunk etc. R. R. Co. 47 N. Y. 525; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. People, 67 Ill. 11; 16 Am. R. 5.; Wheeler v. San Francisco etc. R. R. Co. 31 Cal. 46; New Ing. Express Co. v. Me. Cent. R. R. Co. 57 Mc. 188; Messenger v. Penn'a R. R. Co. 37 N. J. L. 531; 19 Am. R. 754; 13 id. 457; McDuffee r. Railroad, 52 N. H. 730. A railway may become a common carrier of goods without being obliged to become a common carrier of money or bank-bills: Railroad Co. v. Thompson, 19 Ill. 578; Kuter v. Mich. etc. R. R. Co. 1 Biss. 35; Lee v. Burgess, 9 Bush, 652; and see Southern Express Co. v. Everett, 57 Ga. 688.

4 Mich. etc. R. R. Co. v. Burrows, 33 Mich. 6.

5 Ill. Cent. R. R. v. Cobb, 64 Ill. 128; Great Western R. R. Co. v. Burns, 60 id. 284; Faulkner v. South Pacif. R. R. Co. 51 Mo. 311.

6 See Beekman v. Saratoga etc. R. R. 3 Paige, 45; Elmore v. Sands, 54 N. Y. 512; Indianapolis etc. R. R. Co. v. Rinard, 46 Ind. 293; Railroad Co. v. Brown, 17 Wall. 445; Chicago etc. Railw. Co. v. Williams, 55 Ill. 155; 8 Am. R. 641; Hawcroft v. Great North Railw. Co. 8 Eng. L. & Eq. 362.

7 Evansville etc. R. R. Co. v. Duncan, 28 Ind. 441; and see Ill. etc. R. R. Co. v. Demars, 44 Ill. 292.

8 Bissell v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 25 N. Y. 442; McMillan v. Mich. etc. R. R. Co. 16 Mich. 79; Mobile etc. R. R. Co. v. Weiner, 49 Miss. 725; Kimball v. Rutland etc. R. R. Co. 26 Vt. 256; Slim v. Northern Railw. Co. 14 Com. B. 647; Walker v. York etc. Railw. Co. 3 Car. & K. 279.

9 New York Cent. R. R. Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357; 10 Am. R. 366; and compare Menzell v. Railw. Co. 1 Dill. 531; Ohio St. Railw. Co. v. Selby, 47 Ind. 471; 17 Am. R. 719; Babcock v. Lake Shore etc. R. R. Co. 49 N. Y. 491.

10 Poucher v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 49 N. Y. 263; 10 Am. R. 364; Mynard r. Syracuse etc. R. R. Co. 7 Hun, 399; Nicholas v. N. Y. etc. K. R. Co. 4 id. 327; 6 Thomp. & C. 606. Compare Wescott v. Fargo, 61 N. Y. 542; 19 Am. R. 300.

11 See 17 and 18 Vict. ch. 31, § 7; London etc. Railw. Co. v. Dunham, 18 Com. B. 826; Peek v. North Staffordshire Railw. Co. 10 H. L. Cas. 473. 12 Knowlton v. Erie Railw. Co. 19 Ohio St. 260; 2 Am. 395; Ohio etc. Railw. Co. v. Selby, 47 Ind. 471; 17 Am. R. 719; Adams Express Co. v.

Stettaners. 61 Ill. 194; 14 Am. R. 57; Southern Express Co. v. Cook, 44 Ala. 468; Empire Transp. Co. v. Wamsutta Oil Co. 63 Pa. St. 14; 3 Am. R. 515; Rose v. Des Moines Valley Railw. Co. 3) Iowa, 246; School Dist. etc. v. Boston etc. R. R. Co. 102 Mass. 552; Nashville etc. R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 6 Heisk. 271; New Orleans Mut. Ins. Co. v. New Orleans etc. R. R. Co. 20 La. An. 302; Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357; 10 Am. R. 366.

13 New York Co. v. Central R. R. 3 Wall. 107; Mobile etc. R. R. Co. v. Hopkins, 41 Ala. 486; Fillebrown v. Grand Trunk Railw. Co. 55 Me. 462; Railroad Co. v. Manuf. Co. 16 Wall. 318.

6

§ 258. Carriage of freight.-Railway companies are insurers of the safe transportation and delivery of the property intrusted to them for carriage,1 except as against loss or injury caused by the immediate act of God,2 or of a public enemy. But after a safe delivery of the goods in the proper warehouse of the company, and the consignee has had a reasonable time for taking them away, the liability of the company as carrier ceases, and it will hold the goods as a warehouseman only.4 In such case, the company is bound to no more than ordinary care, or such as a man of ordinary prudence would use in respect to his own property placed in like circumstances.5 The liability of a common carrier continues, however, until the goods are unloaded; and if they are destroyed by fire while yet in the car in the freight depot, the company is liable. It is the duty of the company to provide cars of sufficient strength, and this rule applies in respect of cars for the carriage of live stock, as well as to those for the carriage of merchandise.9 And the fact that the shipper knowingly permits his goods to be packed in an insufficient car does not exempt the company from liability, unless he agrees to assume that risk.10 But if the shipper personally superintends the loading of the car, the company will not be liable for a loss resulting from its being unskillfully or insufficiently done.11 So the company is relieved from the responsibility of a carrier where chattels perish by natural decay, or the inherent defects of merchandise. 12 And in the carriage of live stock, in the absence of negligence, the company is not liable for such injuries as occur in consequence of the

vitality of the freight; 18 thus, if one horse inflicts an injury upon another during transportation, the company is not liable, if the injury was caused by the peculiar propensities of the horse to fright, or bad temper, or by the fault of their owner in attaching their halters, or not renoving their shoes.14 A railway company is under no obligation, as a common carrier, to deliver goods at a point beyond or off its own line of road.15 But such a duty can be created by contract, 16 or by a course of business warranting the presumption that goods will be so delivered; 17 and where the agents of the company fail to deliver goods on demand, within a reasonable time, the company may be held liable for the detention.18

1 Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Ames, 40 Ill. 249; Fitchburg etc. R. R. Co. v. Hanna, 6 Gray, 539; Read r. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. 60 Mo. 199: Pruitt v. Hannibal etc. R. R. Co. 62 id. 5.7; Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v Cobb, 64 Ill. 128; Kiff v. Old Colony etc. Railw. Co. 117 Mass. 591; 19 Am. R. 429.

2 Michaels v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 30 N. Y. 564; Chicago etc. Railw. Co. v. Sawyer, 69 Ill. 285; 18 Am. R. 613; Condict v. Grand Trunk Railw. Co. 54 N. Y. 500; Railroad Co. v. Reeves, 10 Wall. 176; Swetland v. Boston etc. R. R. Co. 102 Mass. 276.

3 Phila. etc. R. R. Co. v. Harper, 29 Md. 330; Jackson v. Sacramento etc. R. R. Co. 23 Cal. 268; Thomas v. Boston etc. R. R. Co. 10 Met. 472; Patterson v. North Cár. R. R. Co. 64 No. Car. 147; Nashville etc. R. R. Co. r. Estis, 7 Heisk. 622. Compare Ill. etc. R. R. Co. v. Homberger, 77 111. 457; Ill. etc. R. R. Co. v. McClellan, 54 id. 58; Porcher v. North-eastern R. R. Co. 14 Rich. 181.

4 Mich. etc. R. R. Co. v. Shurtz, 7 Mich. 511; Francise. Dubuque etc. R. R. Co. 25 Iowa, 60; New Jersey R. R. Co. v. Penn'a R. R. Co. 27 N. J. L. 100; Culbreth r. Phila. etc. R. R. Co. 3 Houst. 392; Mohr v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 40 Iowa, 579; Mobile etc. R. R. Co. r. Prewitt, 46 Ala. 63; Derosia v. Winona etc. R. R. Co. 18 Minn. 133; Whitney v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 27 Wis. 327. Coinpare Hedges v. Hudson River R. R. Co. 6 Robt. 119; Railroad Co. v. Maris, 16 Kan. 333; South-western R. R. Co. v. Felder, 46 Ga. 433.

5 Pike v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 40 Wis. 583. Compare Brown v. Grand Trunk Railw. 54 N H. 535.

6 Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Bensley, 69 Пll. 630.

7 Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Bensley, 69 Ill. 630; and see Central R. R. Co. v. Smith, 54 Ga. 499; Winslow v. Vt. etc. R. R. Co. 42 Vt. 700; Kice v. Hart, 118 Mass. 201.

8 St. Louis etc. Railw. Co. v. Dorman, 72 Ill. 504; Sloan v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. 58 Mo. 220.

9 Indianapolis etc. R. R. Co. v. Allen. 31 Ind. 394; Indianapolis etc. Railw. Co. v. Strain, 81 Ill. 504. As to the duty of railway companies to care for animals in course of transportation: see U. S. Rev. Stat. SS 4386-4390.

10 Pratt v. Ogdensburg etc. R. R. Co. 102 Mass. 557. Compare Lee v. Raleigh etc. R. R. Co. 72 No. Car. 236; Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. Hall, 58 Ill. 409.

11 Ross r. Troy etc. R. R. Co. 49 Vt. 364; East Tennessee etc. R. R. Co. v. Whittle, 27 Ga. 535; Klauber v. American Express Co. 21 Wis. 21; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Shea, 66 Ill. 471.

12 Hudson v. Baxendale, 2 Hurl. & N. 575; and see Lake Shore etc. R. R. Co. r. Perkins, 25 Mich. 329; 12 Am. R. 275; Bankard v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. 34 Md. 197; 6 Am. R. 321.

13 Cragin v. N. Y. etc. R. R Co. 51 N. Y. 61; Penn v. Buffalo etc. R. R. Co. 4id. 204; 10 Am. R. 355; Blower v. Great Western Railw. Co. Law R. Com. P. 655; Kendall v. Loudon ete. Railw. Co. Law R. 7 Ex. 373; Mich. Southern etc. R. R. Co. v. McDonough, 21 Mich. 165; 4 Am R. 466.

14 Evans v. Fitchburg R. R. Co. 111 Mass. 142; 15 Am. R. 19.

15 Cobb e. Railroad Co. 33 Iowa, 601; Norway Plains Co. v. Boston etc. R. R. I Gray, 263; People v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 55 Ill. 95; and compare Leavenworth etc. R. R. Co. v. Maris, 16 Kan. 333; Pinnex v. Charlotte etc. R. R Co. 66 No. Car. 34.

16 Southern Express Co. v. McVeigh, 20 Gratt. 264; Cobb v. Railroad Co. 38 Iowa, 601.

17 Cobb r. Railroad Co. 38 Iowa, 601; and see Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. r. Green, 25 Md. 72; Pittsburg etc. Railw. Co. v. Nash, 43 Ind. 423; Cahn v. Mich. etc. R. R. Co. 71 Ill. 96.

18 Sherman v. Hudson River R. R. Co. 5 Daly, 521; Coffin v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 64 Barb. 379; and see Devereux v. Buckley, 34 Ohio St. 16; 32 Am. R. 342.

§ 259. Carriage of passengers.-Railway companies are not bound to carry passengers safely at all events; 1 but they are bound to the exercise of the utmost human care and foresight, and are responsible for injuries and losses arising from even the slightest negligence.2 And the rule that a railway company undertaking to carry passengers is bound to exercise the highest degree of diligence, applies irrespective of any distinction between different kinds of trains. It applies, therefore, in favor of a person riding on a freight train, where he is affirmatively shown to have been admitted so to ride, by an authorized agent or officer, and on payment of fare, so as to be a passenger.4 In its capacity as a carrier of passengers, the company is bound to exercise the highest degree of care in the construction and maintenance of its roadway, and the appurtenances; 5 it is bound to furnish safe and comfortable cars, and safe and ready passage to and from the same; and its obligation to

BOONE CORP.-34.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »