rier must provide for what he reasonably could have foreseen; he is not required either to be prophetic or to anticipate every remotely possible happening."1

SAME-MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION

180. The carrier must exercise the highest degree of practicable care, not only in furnishing suitable means and instrumentalities, but also in inspecting such means and instrumentalities and in keeping them in efficient repair.

Carrier's Duty to Provide Proper Instrumentalities

A highly important application of the passenger carrier's duty to exercise the highest degree of practical care lies in the furnishing of the many and varied instrumentalities of transportation."2 Upon the concrete efficiency of these instrumentalities the safety of the passenger must depend, and for furnishing them he must necessarily rely upon the carrier, and is powerless to protect himself against the consequences, terrible indeed under the conditions of modern rapid transit, resulting from the carrier's negligence in this respect. The word "instrumentalities" is used here broadly, to include all inanimate means used by the carrier in the course of the transportation. The carrier's fault here may be one of pure omission, in utterly failing to supply an instrumentality," or of commission, in supplying some instrumentality, but one that was not suitable. This duty the courts strictly enforce, and the carrier

94

91 Southern Transp. Co. v. Harper, 118 Ga. 672, 45 S. E. 458; Bowen v. New York Cent. R. Co., 18 N. Y. 408, 72 Am. Dec. 529; Keller v. Hestonville, M. & F. Pass. Ry. Co., 149 Pa. 65, 24 Atl. 159; Cornman v. Railway Co., 4 Hurl. & N. (Eng.) 781.

92 Sharp v. Kansas City Cable Ry. Co., 114 Mo. 94, 20 S. W. 93; Heyward v. Boston & A. R. Co., 169 Mass. 466, 48 N. E. 773; Werbowlsky v. Fort Wayne & E. Ry. Co., 86 Mich. 236, 48 N. W. 1097, 24 Am. St. Rep. 120; Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Miller, 141 Ind. 533, 37 N. E. 343; International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Davis, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 340, 43 S. W. 540; Finkeldey v. Omnibus Cable Co., 114 Cal. 28, 45 Pac. 996; Oviatt v. Dakota Cent. Ry. Co., 43 Minn. 300, 45 N. W. 436; American S. S. Co. v. Landreth, 102 Pa. 131, 48 Am. Rep. 196; Id., 108 Pa. 264; Beiser v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 152 Ky. 522, 153 S. W. 742, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1050.

93 Finkeldey v. Omnibus Cable Co., 114 Cal. 28, 45 Pac. 996; New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Blumenthal, 160 Ill. 40, 43 N. E. 809; Mobile & M. R. Co. v. Ashcraft, 48 Ala. 15; Fordyce v. Jackson, 56 Ark. 594, 20 S. W. 528, 597.

94 Sharp v. Kansas City Cable Ry. Co., 114 Mo. 94, 20 S. W. 93; Farley v. Philadelphia Traction Co., 132 Pa. 58, 18 Atl. 1090; Baltimore & P. R. Co.

is rigidly held for any negligence in this respect, resulting in injury to the passenger.

95

While the carrier must keep pace with modern science and invention, he is not required to provide every new or untried device in its experimental stage. When, however, the instrumentality has been proved by experience as greatly lessening the dangers of transportation, and the price is under the circumstances reasonable. (as in the case of the modern air brake ""), then the failure to provide such instrumentality is at least prima facie evidence of negligence." In such cases the length of time during which the appliance has been in use, its expense, the results accomplished, the custom and practice of carriers operating under substantially similar conditions, the comparative efficiency of the appliances used by the carrier, are all important factors in this problem."8

99

This duty of the carrier is nondelegable, and cannot be shifted to another, even an independent contractor, so as to relieve the carrier. The carrier's liability remains the same, whether the instrumentalities are furnished by him or by another. In the latter case the negligence of such other person, judged by the same standard, is, as to the passenger, the negligence of the carrier. Any other rule would permit the carrier to evade perhaps his most serious liability by the simple expedient of turning the work over to another. Such a consequence the law could not for a moment tolerate.

Though this duty extends to all instrumentalities used by the passenger, the majority of actual cases are concerned with the

v. Swann, 81 Md. 400, 32 Atl. 175, 31 L. R. A. 313; Parker v. Boston & H. Steamboat Co., 109 Mass. 449.

95 Meier v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 64 Pa. 225, 3 Am. Rep. 581; Le Barron v. East Boston Ferry Co., 11 Allen (Mass.) 312, 87 Am. Dec. 717; Wynn v. Central Park, N. & E. R. R. Co., 10 App. Div. 13, 41 N. Y. Supp. 595; Merton v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 150 Wis. 540, 137 N. W. 767; Alabama Midland Ry. Co. v. Guilford, 119 Ga. 523, 46 S. E. 655.

96 Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. Thomas' Adm'r, 79 Ky. 160, 42 Am. Rep. 208. 97 Hodges v. Percival, 132 Ill. 53, 23 N. E. 423; Hanson v. Ry. Co., 20 Wkly. Rep. (Eng.) 297; Meier v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 64 Pa. 225, 3 Am. Rep. 581.

98 Pershing v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 71 Iowa, 561, 32 kansas M. Ry. Co. v. Canman, 52 Ark. 517, 13 S. W. 280; pagnie Nationale de Navigation, 131 N. Y. 614, 30 N. E. 865; Park, N. E. R. R. Co., 10 App. Div. 13, 41 N. Y. Supp. 595; v. Glover, 92 Ga. 132, 18 S. E. 406.

N. W. 488; ArGaroni v. ComWynn v. Central Augusta Ry. Co.

Carrico v. West Virginia Cent. & P. Ry. Co., 39 W. Va. 86, 19 S. E. 571, 24 L. R. A. 50; Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 88 Fed. 197, 31 C. C. A. 452; Virginia Cent. R. Co. v. Sanger, 15 Grat. (Va.) 230; Chicago, R. I. & T. R. Co. v. Rhodes, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 432, 80 S. W. 869.

1

carrier's roadbed and vehicles. Roadbed here, over which the carrier's vehicles are run, in the case of railroads is used broadly. It includes cuts and fills, ties, rails, switches, bridges, and culverts. These must be provided with reference, too, to conditions readily foreseen, with which they must contend. Thus embankments must be provided with drains suitable for at least ordinary rainfalls, and the track guarded against falls of earth and rock that may ordinarily be anticipated. In the case of the carrier's vehicles, the care required extends not only to cars, engines, etc., but also to all the appliances with which these should reasonably be equipped, such as brakes, whistles, etc."

Liability for Latent Defects

The carrier is not responsible for hidden defects in his instrumentalities which the highest degree of practicable care could neither have discovered nor prevented. Failure to avert such a latent defect is not negligence, and the carrier is in no sense an insurer or

1 Davis v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 93 Wis. 470, 67 N. W. 16, 1132, 33 L. R. A. 654, 57 Am. St. Rep. 935; McFadden v. New York Cent. R. Co., 44 N. Y. 478, 4 Am. Rep. 705; Gleeson v. Virginia Midland R. Co., 140 U. S. 435, 11 Sup. Ct. 859, 35 L. Ed. 458; Pershing v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 71 Iowa, 561, 32 N. W. 488; Libby v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 85 Me. 34, 26 Atl. 943, 20 L. R. A. 812; Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Miller, 141 Ind. 533, 37 N. E. 343; LOUISIANA & N. W. R. CO. v. CRUMPLER, 122 Fed. 425, 59 C. C. A. 51, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 326; Arkansas Midland Ry. Co. v. Griffith, 63 Ark. 491, 39 S. W. 550.

2 Louisville Ry. Co. v. Park, 96 Ky. 580, 29 S. W. 455; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Swann, 81 Md. 400, 32 Atl. 175, 31 L. R. A. 313; Sharp v. Kansas City Cable Ry. Co., 114 Mo. 94, 20 S. W. 93; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Hazzard, 26 Ill. 373; Graeff v. Philadelphia & R. R., 161 Pa. 230, 28 Atl. 1107, 23 L. R. A. 606, 41 Am. St. Rep. 885; Werbowlsky v. Fort Wayne & E. Ry. Co., 86 Mich. 236, 48 N. W. 1097, 24 Am. St. Rep. 120.

8 See Gleeson v. Virginia Midland R. Co., 140 U. S. 435, 11 Sup. Ct. 859, 35 L. Ed. 458.

4 Sharp v. Kansas City Cable Ry. Co., 114 Mo. 94, 20 S. W. 93; Oviatt v. Dakota Cent. Ry. Co., 43 Minn. 300, 45 N. W. 436; De Cecco v. Connecticut Co., 85 Conn. 707, 83 Atl. 215.

5 South Covington & C. St. R. Co. v. Barr, 147 Ky. 549, 144 S. W. 755; Ingalls v. Bills, 9 Metc. (Mass.) 1, 43 Am. Dec. 346; Palmer v. Delaware & H. Canal Co., 120 N. Y. 170, 24 N. E. 302, 17 Am. St. Rep. 629; Frink v. Potter, 17 Ill. 406; Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. Fay, 16 Ill. 558, 63 Am. Dec. 323; Sawyer v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 37 Mo. 240, 90 Am. Dec. 382; Derwort v. Loomer, 21 Conn. 245; Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Thomas, 42 Ala. 672; Anthony v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (C. C.) 27 Fed. 724; Carter v. Kansas City Cable Ry. Co. (C. C.) 42 Fed. 37; Frink v. Coe, 4 G. Greene (Iowa) 555, 61 Am. Dec. 141. And see Alden v. New York Cent. R. Co., 26 N. Y. 102, 82 Am. Dec. 401, criticised in McPadden v. New York Cent. R. Co., 44 N. Y. 478, 4 Am. Rep. 705, and in Carroll v. Staten Island R. Co., 58 N. Y. 126, 139, 17 Am. Rep. 221. See, also, Readhead v. Railway Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. (Eng.) 412, L. R. 4 Q. B. 379; Buckland v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 181 Mass. 3,

warrantor of the perfection of his appliances. This is true when such defect could not be thus detected or prevented by either the carrier or manufacturer."

The carrier, by the great weight of authority, is liable, however, even though he could not have discovered the defect by the exercise of proper care after the instrumentality was delivered to him, if such defect were ascertainable by the exercise of proper care on the part of the manufacturer.' The negligence of the manufacturer then becomes, as far as the passenger is concerned, the negligence of the carrier. The rule is of great importance in cases (as of rails and car wheels) when such defect is not discoverable by external examination of the completed product, though it can be ascertained by reasonable and well-known tests during the manufacturing process. The question of the carrier's liability turns upon whether by the exercise of the requisite standard of care the defect is discoverable. When and at what stage of the process of making the appliance the defect can be found is not vital, and the carrier, here as before, escapes no liability by securing others to make the appliance, instead of making it himself.

Duty of Inspection and Repair

The carrier's duty as to instrumentalities by no means ceases when these are once provided. The same degree of care must be employed to keep them safe, in spite of the deterioration of use and continued physical changes that can be foreseen. Thus arises

62 N. E. 955; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Sheppard, 56 Ohio St. 68, 46 N. E. 61, 60 Am. St. Rep. 732.

6 Frelsen v. Southern Pac. Co., 42 La. Ann. 673, 7 South. 800; Readhead v. Railway Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. (Eng.) 412, L. R. 4 Q. B. 379; Palmer v. Delaware & H. Canal Co., 120 N. Y. 170, 24 N. E. 302, 17 Am. St. Rep. 629. 7 HEGEMAN v. WESTERN R. CORP., 13 N. Y. 9, 64 Am. Dec. 517, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 329; Caldwell v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 47 N. Y. 282; Carroll v. Staten Island R. Co., 58 N. Y. 126, 17 Am. Rep. 221; Curtis v. Rochester & S. R. Co., 18 N. Y. 534, 538, 75 Am. Dec. 258; Perkins v. New York Cent. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 196, 219, 82 Am. Dec. 281; Bissell v. New York Cent. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 442, 82 Am. Dec. 369; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Phillips, 49 Ill. 234; Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Nelson, 51 Ind. 150; Treadwell v. Whittier, 80 Cal. 574, 22 Pac. 266, 5 L. R. A. 498, 13 Am. St. Rep. 175; Meier v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 64 Pa. 225, 3 Am. Rep. 581; Grote v. Railway Co., 2 Exch. (Eng.) 251; Readhead v. Railway Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. (Eng.) 412, L. R. 4 Q. B. 379. In some cases the liability of the carrier is denied, when the carrier is not himself at fault and when he employs a reputable manufacturer. Nashville & D. R. Co. v. Jones, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 27; Grand Rapids & I. R. Co., v. Huntley, 38 Mich. 537, 31 Am. Rep. 321. 8 Wynn v. Central Park, N. & E. R. R. Co., 133 N. Y. 575, 30 N. E. 721; Rutherford v. Shreveport & H. R. Co., 41 La. Ann. 793, South. 644; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Hamilton, 66 Tex. 92, 17 S. W. 406; Stokes v. Ry. Co., 2 Fost. & F. (Eng.) 691; Chicago, P. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Lewis, 145 Ill. 67, 33 N. E.

the duty, as to such instrumentalities, not only of preparation, but also of inspection and repair."

The nature and frequency of such inspections are practical questions, to be decided according to the varying facts of each case.10 The more severe the use and the greater the likelihood of deterioration, the more frequent should be the inspection. The greater the difficulty in discovering the defect and the more serious the result of its not being discovered, if present, the more exact and thorough should be the inspection. Ordinarily the most thorough and delicate tests known to scientists are not required, but the carrier should use such tests as can reasonably be made, and which are known in general to yield satisfactory results." In many cases the time element is important as to how long a defect has existed, in determining whether the carrier was or was not negligent in failing to discover the defect.12

Not only is the carrier liable for his negligence in failing, through improper inspection, to discover defects, but also for his negligent failure to repair such defects properly after such defect is discovered.18 Or it may be negligence on the carrier's part when he fails in many cases to make periodic repairs to certain instrumentalities in order to prevent defects, which, but for such repairs, can usually be expected to appear.11

960; Bremner v. Williams, 1 C. & P. (Eng.) 414; Proud v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co., 64 N. J. Law, 702, 46 Atl. 710, 50 L. R. A. 468; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Leflar, 104 Ark. 528, 149 S. W. 530.

Libby v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 85 Me. 34, 26 Atl. 943, 20 L. R. A. 812; Frelsen v. Southern Pac. Co., 42 La. Ann. 673, 7 South. 800; Dorn v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 154 Iowa, 140, 134 N. W. 855; Arkansas Midland Ry. Co. v. Griffith, 63 Ark. 491, 39 S. W. 550. See, also, cases cited in the preceding note.

10 Bremner v. Williams, 1 C. & P. (Eng.) 414; Stokes v. Railway Co., 2 Fost. & F. (Eng.) 691; Proud v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co., 64 N. J. Law, 702, 46 Atl. 710, 50 L. R. A. 468; St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Mitchell, 57 Ark. 418, 21 S. W. 883; Keating v. Detroit, B. C. & A. R. Co., 104 Mich. 418, 62 N. W. 575; Burt v. Douglas County St. Ry. Co., 83 Wis. 229, 53 N. W. 447, 18 L. R. A. 479.

11 Stokes v. Railway Co., 2 Fost. & F. (Eng.) 691.

12 McPadden v. New York Cent. R. Co., 44 N. Y. 478, 4 Am. Rep. 705; Frelsen v. Southern Pac. Co., 42 La. Ann. 673, 7 South. 800.

13 Pym v. Railway Co., 2 Fost. & F. (Eng.) 619; Peoria, P. & J. R. Co. v. Reynolds, 88 Ill. 418; McCafferty v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 193 Pa. 339, 44 Atl. 435, 74 Am. St. Rep. 690; Florida Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Webster, 25 Fla. 394, 5 South. 714; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of Texas v. Flood, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 197, 79 S. W. 1106.

14 As cross-ties, for example. See Rutherford v. Shreveport & H. R. Co., 41 La. Ann. 793, 6 South. 644.