by the carrier of one who presents himself for transportation, and so the existence of the relation of passenger and carrier is commonly to be implied from the surrounding facts and circumstances These circumstances must be such as to warrant an implication that the one has offered himself to be carried on a trip about to be made, and that the other has accepted his offer, and has received him either to be properly cared for until the trip is begun, or to be then and there carried. There is manifestly lacking here the clear and unequivocal acts which attend ordinarily the offer and acceptance of goods for transportation, so that the question of what constitutes an offer on the part of the passenger and what an acceptance by the carrier is one of much greater difficulty.

A railroad company, as a common carrier of passengers, holds itself out as ready to receive as passengers all persons who present themselves for the purpose of being carried, in a proper condition and in a proper manner, at a proper place. It invites everybody to come who is willing to be governed by its rules and regulations, and ordinarily provides platforms, waiting rooms, and other stational facilities to accommodate those properly responding to this invitation. The question is whether the person has presented himself, in readiness to be carried, under such circumstances, in reference to time, place, manner, and condition, that the railroad company must be deemed to have accepted him as a passenger." Was his conduct such as to bring him within the invitation of the railroad company? The same considerations are also applicable to steamboat companies.

When there is no formal offer or acceptance, these will be presumed or implied subject to the limitations just set out. Thus the intending passenger must offer himself at a reasonable time for

4 Barth v. Kansas City El. Ry. Co., 142 Mo. 535, 44 S. W. 778; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. State, to Use of Chambers, 81 Md. 371, 32 Atl. 201; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Holloway, 71 Kan. 1, 80 Pac. 31, 114 Am. St. Rep. 462; Maxfield v. Maine Cent. Ry. Co., 100 Me. 79, 60 Atl. 710; Busch v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 110 App. Div. 705, 96 N. Y. Supp. 747.

Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Walker, 217 Ill. 605, 75 N. E. 520; NORFOLK & W. R. CO. v. GALLIHER, 89 Va. 639, 16 S. E. 935, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 311; Exton v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 62 N. J. Law, 7, 42 Atl. 486, 56 L. R. A. (N. S.) 508; Grimes v. Pennsylvania Co. (C. C.) 36 Fed. 72; Young v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 171 Mass. 33, 50 N. E. 455, 41 L. R. A. 193; WEBSTER v. FITCHBURG R. CO., 161 Mass. 298, 37 N. E. 165, 24 L. R. A. 521, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 309; Lapin v. Northwestern El. R. Co., 162 Ill. App. 296.

• Dodge v. Boston & B. S. S. Co., 148 Mass. 207, 19 N. E. 373, 2 L. R. A. 83, 12 Am. St. Rep. 541; Rogers v. Kennebec Steamboat Co., 86 Me. 261, 29 Atl. 1069, 25 L. R. A. 491; The Eugene, 87 Fed. 1001, 31 C. C. A. 345.

7

immediate transportation, and one is not deemed to be a passenger who comes to the station an unreasonable length of time before the scheduled time for the departure of his train. The carrier's invitation as to place is ordinarily limited to its platforms, vehicles, stations, or waiting rooms, and its acceptance will not be implied by the mere presence of the intending passenger at any other place. The person must offer himself in a proper manner, which was not the case when a person was running rapidly, without taking precautions for his safety, directly in front of an oncoming train. The actual purchase of a ticket, or the entering of the carrier's vehicle, is not necessary to establish the relation of passenger and carrier. Thus, a person who is injured while attempting to board a train under the direction of the carrier's servants is a passenger, whether a ticket has been purchased 11 or not.12 One on his way to the station is ordinarily not a passenger, but where a per

▾ Heinlein v. Boston & P. R. Co., 147 Mass. 136, 16 N. E. 698, 9 Am. St. Rep. 676. And see Harris v. Stevens, 31 Vt. 79, 73 Am. Dec. 337; Andrews v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., 86 Miss. 129, 38 South. 773.

8 Archer v. Union Pac. R. Co., 110 Mo. App. 349, 85 S. W. 934; Eakins v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 126 Iowa, 324, 102 N. W. 104; Spannagle v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 31 Ill. App. 460; Haase v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., 19 Or. 354, 24 Pac. 238.

• Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Weeks, 99 Ill. App. 518, affirmed in Weeks v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 198 Ill. 551, 64 N. E. 1039; WEBSTER v. FITCHBURG R. CO., 161 Mass. 298, 37 N. E. 165, 24 L. R. A. 521, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 309. That persons boarding moving cars are not passengers, see Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cotter (Ky.) 103 S. W. 279; Baltimore Traction Co. of Baltimore City v. State, 78 Md. 409, 28 Atl. 397; Perry v. Central R. R., 66 Ga. 746; Schaefer v. St. Louis & S. Ry. Co., 128 Mo. 64, 30 S. W. 331. 10 Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Groseclose's Adm'r, 88 Va. 267, 13 S. E. 454, 29 Am. St. Rep. 718; Western & A. R. Co. v. Voils, 98 Ga. 446, 26 S. E. 483, 35 L. R. A. 655; Phillips v. Southern Ry. Co., 124 N. C. 123, 32 S. E. 388, 45 L. R. A. 163; Rogers v. Kennebec Steamboat Co., 86 Me. 261, 29 Atl. 1069, 25 L. R. A. 491; Allender v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 37 Iowa, 264; Gordon v. Grand St. & N. R. Co., 40 Barb. (N. Y.) 546. But see Gardner v. New Haven & Northampton Railroad Co., 51 Conn. 143, 50 Am. Rep. 12; Indiana Cent. Ry. Co. v. Hudelson, 13 Ind. 325, 74 Am. Dec. 254.

11 Warren v. Fitchburg R. Co., 8 Allen (Mass.) 227, 85 Am. Dec. 700. See, also, cases cited in preceding note.

12 Albin v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 103 Mo. App. 308, 77 S. W. 153; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Laloge, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 693, 69 S. W. 795; McDonald v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 26 Iowa, 124, 95 Am. Dec. 114; Allender v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 37 Iowa, 264; Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Groseclose's Adm'r, 88 Va. 267, 13 S. E. 454, 29 Am. St. Rep. 718. Contra, Indiana Cent. Ry. Co. v. Hudelson, 13 Ind. 325, 74 Am. Dec. 254.

13 June v. Boston & A. R. Co., 153 Mass. 79, 26 N. E. 238; Tingley v. Long Island R. Co., 109 App. Div. 793, 96 N. Y. Supp. 865; Southern R. Co. v. Smith, 86 Fed. 292, 30 C. C. A. 58, 40 L. R. A. 746; Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Jennings, 190 Ill. 478, 60 N. E. 818, 54 L. R. A. 827.

son was riding to a railway station in a sleigh furnished by the carrier, he was held to be a passenger.11 If a street car or omnibus stops even on a public street at the signal of an intending passenger, he is deemed to be a passenger while boarding such car or omnibus.15 A person entering the train before it was ready to start, by the carrier's consent, was held to be a passenger.10

There are expressions in some of the books that the person seeking to be carried must announce his intention to the carrier before he can be deemed to be a passenger." The advisability of doing this in a way that is unmistakable (as by the purchase of a ticket) is unquestioned. But when the carrier has provided waiting rooms or platforms, to which it invites those to come who intend to become passengers, it is believed that an intending passenger, properly presenting himself at such a place at a proper time, becomes a passenger without buying a ticket, or without any further notice to the servants of the carrier of his intentions than his mere presence at the platform or waiting room under such circumstances as would, of themselves, normally indicate that he was presenting himself for immediate transportation.18 Certainly the holder of a mileage book, who, with a satchel in his hand, took a seat in the carrier's waiting room five minutes before the departure of his

14 Buffett v. Troy & B. R. Co., 40 N. Y. 168.

15 Benjamin v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 245 Mo. 598, 151 S. W. 91; Maguire v. St. Louis Transit Co., 103 Mo. App. 459, 78 S. W. 838; DUCHEMIN v. BOSTON ELEVATED R. CO., 186 Mass. 353, 71 N. E. 780, 66 L. R. A. 980, 104 Am. St. Rep. 580, 1 Ann. Cas. 603, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 312; West Chicago St. R. Co. v. James, 69 Ill. App. 609; Gordon v. West End St. Ry. Co., 175 Mass. 181, 55 N. E. 990; Smith v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 1, 18 N. W. 827, 50 Am. Rep. 550; Brien v. Bennett, 8 Car. & P. (Eng.) 724. And see McDonough v. Metropolitan R. Co., 137 Mass. 210; Donovan v. Hartford St. Ry. Co., 65 Conn. 201, 32 Atl. 350, 29 L. R. A. 297.

16 Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Martin, 111 Ill. 219; Lent v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 120 N. Y. 467, 24 N. E. 653. And see Poucher v. New York Cent. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 263, 10 Am. Rep. 364; Gardner v. Waycross Air-Line R. Co., 94 Ga. 538, 19 S. E. 757; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of Texas v. Byrd, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 315, 89 S. W. 991.

17 See 2 Hutch. Carr. § 1015, and cases cited; 6 Cyc. pp. 538, 539, and cases cited.

18 Phillips v. Southern Ry. Co., 124 N. C. 123, 32 S. E. 388, 45 L. R. A. 163; Grimes v. Pennsylvania Co. (C. C.) 36 Fed. 72; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.) 39 S. W. 124; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Walker, 217 Ill. 605,

75 N. E. 520; Metcalf v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., 97 Miss. 455, 52 South. 355, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 311; Roberts v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 155 N. C. 79, 70 S. E. 1080 (here passenger purchased his ticket, left the station, and later returned to the station); Mitchell v. Augusta & A. R. Co., 87 S. C. 375, 69 S. E. 664, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 442. See Elliott on Railroads, § 1597; note in 24 L. R. A. 521. See, also, Albin v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 103 Mo. App. 308, 77 S. W. 153.

train, would be a passenger, though he took no steps formally to announce to the carrier's servants his intention to be carried, or even if none of these had noticed his presence.

TERMINATION OF THE RELATION-IN GENERAL

168. The relation of passenger and carrier may be terminated, after it has once begun:

(a) When the carrier has fully performed the contract of transportation.

(b) When the carrier ejects the passenger from its vehicle.

(c) When the passenger abandons the journey, though it is not completed.

As the duties owed to the passenger by the carrier arise in the commencement of the relation, so do they cease when that relation ends.1 It is therefore necessary to discuss what will serve to terminate this relation after it has once lawfully been established. Those acts, therefore, on the part of the carrier or the passenger which will have the legal effect of terminating an existing relation of carrier and passenger, will next be discussed.

SAME FULL PERFORMANCE BY CARRIER-ALIGHTING AT STATION

169. The passenger does not cease to be such, after arriving at his destination, until he has been afforded a reasonable time

and opportunity to alight from the carrier's vehicle and leave the premises of the carrier.

Even though the carrier has transported the passenger to the destination indicated in the contract of carriage, the relation of carrier and passenger is not thereby terminated.20 The passenger retains his character as such until the carrier has given to him a

19 Creamer v. West End St. Ry. Co., 156 Mass. 320, 31 N. E. 391, 16 L. R. A. 490, 32 Am. St. Rep. 456; Hendrick v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 136 Mo. 548, 38 S. W. 297; Smith v. City Ry. Co., 29 Or. 539, 46 Pac. 136, 780; King v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 107 Ga. 754, 33 S. E. 839; Lemery v Great Northern Ry. Co., 83 Minn. 47, 85 N. W. 908.

20 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Wood, 104 Fed. 663, 44 C. C. A. 118; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Glenk, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 599, 30 S. W. 278; Wandell v. Corbin, 49 Hun, 608, 1 N. Y. Supp. 795. See, also, cases cited in notes 21 and 22.

reasonable time and opportunity to alight from the carrier's vehicle and to leave the carrier's premises.21 Until such time and opportunity are afforded, the passenger relation still continues.22 When these have been given, however, the relation ceases, for the passenger will not be permitted to prolong it by his wrong in failing to take seasonable advantage of the opportunity granted to him.23

To terminate the relation, after the destination is reached, the carrier must first stop his train or vehicle long enough to permit the passengers duly to alight." If this time is unreasonably short, it will not have this effect. A reasonable opportunity to alight involves, too, a safe place. When, therefore, a carrier stops its

21 McKimble v. Boston & M. R. R., 139 Mass. 542, 2 N. E. 97; South Covington & C. St. Ry. Co. v. Beatty, 50 S. W. 239, 20 Ky. Law Rep. 1845; Pennsylvania Co. v. McCaffery, 173 Ill. 169, 50 N. E. 713; Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. King, 99 Fed. 251, 40 C. C. A. 432, 49 L. R. A. 102; BRUNSWICK & W. R. CO. v. MOORE, 101 Ga. 684, 28 S. E. 1000, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 314; Williamson v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co., 159 Ill. App. 443.

22 Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Gray (Ind. App.) 59 N. E. 1000; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Dick, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 256, 63 S. W. 895; Hartzig v. Lehigh Val. R. R., 154 Pa. 365, 26 Atl. 310; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Wood, 104 Fed. 663, 44 C. C. A. 118; Keefe v. Boston & A. R. R., 142 Mass. 251, 7 N. E. 874; BRUNSWICK & W. R. CO. v. MOORE, 101 Ga. 684, 28 S. E. 1000, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 314.

23 Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. Frazer, 55 Kan. 582, 40 Pac. 923; Hurt v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 94 Mo. 255, 7 S. W. 1, 4 Am. St. Rep. 374; Imhoff v. Chicago & M. R. Co., 22 Wis. 681; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Beecher, 65 Ark. 64, 44 S. W. 715; Chattanooga Electric R. Co. v. Boddy, 105 Tenn. 666, 58 S. W. 646, 51 L. R. A. 885; Central Ry. Co. v. Peacock, 69 Md. 257, 14 Atl. 709, 9 Am. St. Rep. 425.

24 Keller v. Sioux City & St. P. R. Co., 27 Minn. 178, 6 N. W. 486; Raben v. Central Iowa Ry. Co., 73 Iowa, 579, 35 N. W. 645, 5 Am. St. Rep. 708; Hurt v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 94 Mo. 255, 7 S. W. 1, 4 Am. St. Rep. 374; Straus v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co., 75 Mo. 185; Mississippi & T. R. Co. v. Gill, 66 Miss. 39, 5 South. 39; Fairmount & Arch St. Pass. Ry. Co. v. Stutler, 54 Pa. 375, 93 Am. Dec. 714; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Kilgore, 32 Pa. 292, 72 Am. Dec. 787; Mulhado v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 30 N. Y. 370; Ferry v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 118 N. Y. 497, 23 N. E. 822; Baker v. Manhattan R. Co., 118 N. Y. 533, 23 N. E. 885; Wood v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 49 Mich. 370, 13 N. W. 779; Finn v. Valley City Street & Cable Ry. Co., 86 Mich. 74, 48 N. W. 696. If one about to alight is injured by the premature starting of a train, he may recover. Washington & G. R. Co. v. Harmon, 147 U. S. 571, 13 Sup. Ct. 557, 37 L. Ed. 284; Hill v. West End St. Ry. Co., 158 Mass. 458, 33 N. E. 582; Gilbert v. West End St. Ry. Co., 160 Mass. 403, 36 N. E. 60; Onderdonk v. New York & B. Ry. Co., 74 Hun, 42, 26 N. Y. Supp. 310; Bernstein v. Dry Dock, E. B. & B. R. Co., 72 Hun, 46, 25 N. Y. Supp. 669; CHICAGO & A. R. CO. v. ARNOL, 144 Ill. 261, 33 N. E. 204, 19 L. R. A. 313, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 332; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Taylor, 46 Ill. App. 141; Chicago & A. Ry. Co. v. Meyer. 127 Ill. App. 314.

25 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Lucas, 119 Ind. 583, 21 N. E. 968, 6 L