Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

SAME-STATIONAL FACILITIES

181. The carrier must provide proper stational facilities for the traveling public. In the construction, inspection, and repair of stational facilities (though some courts hold otherwise) the carrier is bound to use only ordinary care, and not the highest degree of practical care.

Duty to Provide Stational Facilities

In order that the public, entering or leaving its conveyances, may have proper means therefor, the carrier must provide proper stational facilities,15 as well as the actual instrumentalities of transportation. This includes wharves in the case of steamboats,16 and station platforms and approaches to the trains in the case of railroad companies." Waiting rooms must also be provided, with accommodations which are reasonably adapted to the passenger's safety and comfort.1 18 The nature and extent of all these must necessarily vary widely according to the traffic and the number of persons using them.10

Degree of Care

An important distinction is to be observed between the degree of care to be exercised in the construction and maintenance of tracks

15 Falls v. San Francisco & N. P. R. Co., 97 Cal. 114, 31 Pac. 901; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Walker, 217 Ill. 605, 75 N. E. 520; Keefe v. Boston & A. R. R., 142 Mass. 251, 7 N. E. 874; Stokes v. Suffolk & C. R. Co., 107 N. C. 178, 11 S. E. 991; Barker v. Ohio River R. Co., 51 W. Va. 423, 41 S. E. 148, 90 Am. St. Rep. 808; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Stewart, 228 U. S. 357, 33 Sup. Ct. 548, 57 L. Ed. 875.

16 Dodge v. Boston & B. S. S. Co., 148 Mass. 207, 19 N. E. 373, 2 L. R. A. 83, 12 Am. St. Rep. 541; White v. Seattle, E. & T. Nav. Co., 36 Wash. 281 78 Pac. 909, 104 Am. St. Rep. 948; Strutt v. Brooklyn & R. B. R. Co., 18 App. Div. 134, 45 N. Y. Supp. 728.

17 Eichorn v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 130 Mo. 575, 32 S. W. 993; Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R. Co. v. Wingate, 143 Ind. 125, 37 N. E. 274, 42 N. E. 477; KELLEY v. MANHATTAN RY. CO., 112 N. Y. 443, 20 N. E. 383, 3 L. R. A. 74, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 331; Rathgebe v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 179 Pa. 31, 36 Atl. 160; Burnham v. Wabash West. Ry. Co., 91 Mich. 523, 52 N. W. 14; Young v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 171 Mass. 33, 50 N. E. 455, 41 L. R. A. 193; Woodbury v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 110 Me. 224, 85 Atl. 753, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 682.

18 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Humble, 97 Fed. 837, 38 C. C. A. 502; Jordan v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 165 Mass. 346, 43 N. E. 111, 32 L. R. A. 101, 52 Am. St. Rep. 522; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 70 Ark. 136, 66 S. W. 661, 91 Am. St. Rep. 74.

19 Brown v. Georgia, C. & N. R. Co., 119 Ga. 88, 46 S. E. 71; Taylor v. Pennsylvania Co. (C. C.) 50 Fed. 755; Sandifer's Adm'r v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 89 S. W. 528.

and running machinery by railroad corporations and the degree of care to be exercised along the same lines with regard to stational facilities. As to the former, the carrier is held to the use of the utmost practicable care in discovering and remedying defects therein.20 As to the latter, the carrier is liable only for the want of ordinary care." In each case, the carrier is liable for his negligence; but the duty (the breach of which constitutes negligence) is as to roadbed and running machinery fixed at the highest degree of practicable care,22 while as to stational facilities the carrier fulfills his duty in exercising merely ordinary care.23 The reason for this distinction is thus practically put by Mr. Justice Peckham in a leading New York case: 24 "But in the approaches to the cars, such as platforms, halls, stairways, and the like, a less degree of care is required, and for the reason that the consequences of a neglect of the highest skill and care which human foresight can attain to are naturally of a much less serious nature. The rule in such cases is that the carrier is bound simply to exercise ordinary care in view of the dangers to be apprehended." The failure to light the platform,25 allowing snow and ice to accumulate,20 or other obstruc

20 See ante, §§ 179-180.

21 KELLEY v. MANHATTAN RY. CO., 112 N. Y. 443, 20 N. E. 383, 3 L. R. A. 74, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 331; Skottowe v. Oregon S. L. & U. N. R. Co., 22 Or. 430, 30 Pac. 222, 16 L. R. A. 593; Moreland v. Boston & P. R. R., 141 Mass. 31, 6 N. E. 225; Taylor v. Pennsylvania Co. (C. C.) 50 Fed. 755; Robertson v. Wabash R. Co., 152 Mo. 382, 53 S. W. 1082; Conroy v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., 96 Wis. 243, 70 N. W. 486, 38 L. R. A. 419; Falls v. San Francisco & N. P. R. Co., 97 Cal. 114, 31 Pac. 901; Mayne v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 12 Okl. 10, 69 Pac. 933; Dotson v. Erie R. Co., 68 N. J. Law, 679, 54 Atl. 827; Parnaby v. Canal Co., 11 Adol. & E. (Eng.) 223; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Stewart, 228 U. S. 357, 33 Sup. Ct. 548, 57 L. Ed. 875; Woodbury v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 110 Me. 224, 85 Atl. 753, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 682.

22 Ante, § 180.

23 See cases cited in note 21.

24 KELLEY v. MANHATTAN RY. CO., 112 N. Y. 443, 20 N. E. 383, 3 L. R. A. 74, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 331.

25 Jamison v. San Jose & S. C. R. Co., 55 Cal. 593; Peniston v. Chicago, St. L. & N. O. R. Co., 34 La. Ann. 777, 44 Am. Rep. 444; Patten v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 32 Wis. 524; Id., 36 Wis. 413; Beard v. Connecticut & P. R. R. Co., 48 Vt. 101; Buenemann v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 390, 20 N. W. 379; Dice v. Willamette Transportation & Locks Co., 8 Or. 60, 34 Am. Rep. 575; Valentine v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 70 Wash. 95, 126 Pac. 99; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Stewart, 228 U. S. 357, 33 Sup. Ct. 548, 57 L. Ed. 875.

26 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Whitfield, 44 Miss. 466, 7 Am. Rep. 699; Weston v. New York El. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 595; Seymour v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 3 Biss. 43, Fed. Cas. No. 12,685; Rodick v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 109 Me. 530, 85 Atl. 41; Waterbury v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 104 Iowa, 32, 73 N.

tions" to remain thereon, or such a construction that part of a moving train projects over the platform,28 have been held to constitute negligence for which the carrier is liable.29 Some cases, however, even as to stational facilities, hold the carrier up to the highest degree of practicable care.30

31

The carrier cannot escape liability for its negligence in failing to exercise ordinary care as to stational facilities by proving that these were owned, controlled or constructed by another. This duty is owed by the carrier, and to him can the passenger look always for its performance; by whom the facilities are actually provided or maintained does not affect the passenger's remedy against the carrier, and such passenger is not concerned with the rights of the carrier over against the one actually providing these facilities.

Right to Give Exclusive Rights in Station to Privileged Hackmen

A question which has given the courts no little trouble is the right of a railroad company to permit certain privileged hackmen to solicit business in its station and to forbid all others save those thus privileged from using the station for that purpose. By what is believed to be the better view, the railroad company is permitted. to do this, provided the traveling public is properly served by the

W. 341; Hull v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 116 Minn. 349, 133 N. W. 852. But see KELLEY v. MANHATTAN RY. CO., 112 N. Y. 443, 20 N. E. 383, 3 L. R. A. 74, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 331.

27 Martin v. Ry. Co., 16 C. B. (Eng.) 179; Osborn v. Union Ferry Co., 53 Barb. (N. Y.) 629; Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Spencer, 27 Colo. 313, 61 Pac. 606, 51 L. R. A. 121.

28 Langan v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 72 Mo. 392; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Wilson, 63 Ill. 167; Dobiecki v. Sharp, 88 N. Y. 203.

29 Holes in platform, Knight v. Portland, S. & P. R. Co., 56 Me. 234, 96 Am. Dec. 449; Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Fillmore, 57 Ill. 265; Liscomb v. New Jersey R. Transp. Co., 6 Lans. (N. Y.) 75; passengers obliged to cross tracks, Keating v. New York Cent. R. Co., 3 Lans. (N. Y.) 469; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. State, to Use of Hauer, 60 Md. 449; Klein v. Jewett, 26 N. J. Eq. 474; grease on platform, Newcomb v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 182 Mo. 687, 81 S. W. 1069; failure to light station, Abbott v. Oregon R. Co., 46 Or. 549, 80 Pac. 1012, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 851, 114 Am. St. Rep. 885, 7 Ann. Cas. 961.

30 Cole v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 81 Mich. 156, 45 N. W. 983; Louisville Ry. Co. v. Park, 96 Ky. 580, 29 S. W. 455; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Butcher, 83 Tex. 309, 18 S. W. 583. See, also, Dodge v. Boston & B. S. S. Co., 148 Mass. 219, 19 N. E. 373, 2 L. R. A. 83, 12 Am. St. Rep. 541; Lapin v. Northwestern Elevated R. Co., 162 Ill. App. 296.

81 Owen v. Washington & C. R. R. Co., 29 Wash. 207, 69 Pac. 757; Frazier v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.. 180 Mass. 427, 62 N. E. 731; Skottowe v. Oregon S. L. & U. N. Ry. Co., 22 Or. 430, 30 Pac. 222, 16 L. R. A. 593; Leveret v. Shreveport Belt R. Co., 110 La. 399, 34 South. 579; Buddenberg

privileged hackmen. The carrier's duty is to the traveling public, so that, if the public is properly served, it hardly is reasonable for the disgruntled hackmen to complain because they are not permitted to perform this service for their own profit. A number of states, however, hold the contrary view. There is general agreement, though, that the traveler's own carriage or one that he has previously engaged cannot be denied admittance to the station.

33

SAME-DUTIES IN CONNECTION WITH TRANS-
PORTATION

84

182. The carrier must exercise the highest degree of practicable care in the operation and management of its instrumentalities and in the performance of services reasonably incident to the handling of its passenger traffic.

The same degree of care exacted of the carrier in providing and maintaining instrumentalities is required as to the operation and management of those instrumentalities.35 The carrier is bound to

v. Charles P. Chouteau Transp. Co., 108 Mo. 394, 18 S. W. 970; Cotant v. Boone Suburban R. Co., 125 Iowa, 46, 99 N. W. 115, 69 L. R. A. 982; John v. Bacon, L. R. 5 C. P. (Eng.) 437.

32 Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co., 199 U. S. 279, 26 Sup. Ct. 91, 50 L. Ed. 192; Brown v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 151 N. Y. 674, 46 N. E. 1145; Boston & M. R. R. v. Sullivan, 177 Mass. 230, 58 N. E. 689, 83 Am. St. Rep. 275; Kates v. Atlanta Baggage & Cab Co., 107 Ga. 636, 34 S. E. 372, 46 L. R. A. 431; Hedding v. Gallagher, 72 N. H. 377, 57 Atl. 225, 64 L. R. A. 811; Godbout v. St. Paul Union Depot Co., 79 Minn. 188, 81 N. W. 835, 47 L. R. A. 532; Griswold v. Webb, 16 R. I. 649, 19 Atl. 143, 7 L. R. A. 302; In re Beadell, 2 C. B. N. S. (Eng.) 509; Hole v. Digby, 27 Weekly Rep. (Eng.) 884; Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Old Dominion Baggage Co., 99 Va. 111, 37 S. E. 784, 50 L. R. A. 722; New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. v. Ryan, 71 Misc. Rep. 241, 129 N. Y. Supp. 55.

33 Kalamazoo Hack & Bus Co. v. Sootsma, 84 Mich. 194, 47 N. W. 667, 10 L. R. A. 189, 22 Am. St. Rep. 693; State v. Reed, 76 Miss. 211, 24 South. 308, 43 L. R. A. 134, 71 Am. St. Rep. 528; McConnell v. Pedigo, 92 Ky. 465, 18 S. W. 15; Montana Union Ry. Co. v. Langlois, 9 Mont. 419, 24 Pac. 209, 8 L. R. A. 753, 18 Am. St. Rep. 745; Indianapolis Union Ry. Co. v. Dohn, 153 Ind. 10, 53 N. E. 937, 45 L. R. A. 427, 74 Am. St. Rep. 274.

34 Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co., 199 U. S. 279, 26 Sup. Ct. 91. 50 L. Ed. 192; Griswold v. Webb, 16 R. I. 649, 19 Atl. 143, 7 L. R. A. 302; State v. Union Depot Co., 71 Ohio St. 379, 73 N. E. 633, 68 L. R. A. 792, 2 Ann. Cas. 186; New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. v. Ryan, 71 Misc. Rep. 241, 129 N. Y. Supp. 55.

35 Mitchell v. Marker, 62 Fed. 139, 10 C. C. A. 306, 25 L. R. A. 33; White v. Fitchburg R. Co., 136 Mass. 321; Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Jones, 108 Ind. 551, 9 N. E. 476; Farlow v. Kelly, 108 U. S. 288, 2 Sup. Ct. 555, 27

exercise the highest degree of care, in view of all circumstances, to prevent damage to its passengers by the operation of its means of conveyance, avoiding sudden starts and stops,3 danger from curves, or a dangerous rate of speed.38 The same is true of the make-up of a train and the position of the cars in the train.3°

37

A like degree of care attaches to the carrier in connection with the receiving of passengers on, and discharging them from,11 his

40

L. Ed. 726; Hite v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 130 Mo. 132, 31 S..W. 262, 32 S. W. 33, 51 Am. St. Rep. 555; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Richmond, 67 S. W. 25, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 2394; Pennsylvania Co. v. Newmeyer, 129 Ind. 401, 28 N. E. 860; Union P. Ry. Co. v. Harris, 158 U. S. 326, 15 Sup. Ct. 843, 39 L. Ed. 1003; South Covington & C. St. R. Co. v. Hardy, 152 Ky. 374, 153 S. W. 474, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 32.

86 Holmes v. Allegheny Traction Co., 153 Pa. 152, 25 Atl. 640; Yarnell v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. Ry. Co., 113 Mo. 570, 21 S. W. 1, 18 L. R. A. 599; North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Cook, 145 Ill. 551, 33 N. E. 958; Poole v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co., 89 Ga. 320, 15 S. E. 321; Cassidy v. Atlantic Ave. R. Co., 9 Misc. Rep. 275, 29 N. Y. Supp. 724; Hill v. West End St. Ry. Co., 158 Mass. 458, 33 N. E. 582; CHICAGO & A. R. CO. v. ARNOL, 144 Ill. 261, 33 N. E. 204, 19 L. R. A. 313, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 332. As to street cars where passengers are alighting, Cawfield v. Asheville St. Ry. Co., 111 N. C. 597, 16 S. E. 703; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Landauer, 36 Neb. 642, 54 N. W. 976 (alighting from train); Robinson v. Northampton Ry. Co., 157 Mass. 224, 32 N. E. 1; Conway v. New Orleans & C. R. Co., 46 La. Ann. 1429, 16 South. 362; Washington & G. R. Co. v. Harmon, 147 U. S. 571, 13 Sup. Ct. 557, 37 L. Ed. 284; Jones v. Chicago City R. Co., 147 Ill. App. 640; Benjamin v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 245 Mo. 598, 151 S. W. 91; Bobbitt v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, 169 Mo. App. 424, 153 S. W. 70; Illinois Cent. Ry. Co. v. Dallas' Adm'x, 150 Ky. 442, 150 S. W. 536.

37 Lynn v. Southern Pac. Co., 103 Cal. 7, 36 Pac. 1018, 24 L. R. A. 710; Francisco v. Troy & L. R. Co., 78 Hun, 13, 29 N. Y. Supp. 247; Brusch v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 52 Minn. 512, 55 N. W. 57. And see Highland Ave. & B. R. Co. v. Donovan, 94 Ala. 299, 10 South. 139.

38 Lynn v. Southern Pac. Co., 103 Cal. 7, 36 Pac. 1018, 24 L. R. A. 710; Andrews v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 86 Iowa, 677, 53 N. W. 399; Chicago, P. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Lewis, 145 Ill. 67, 33 N. E. 960; Pennsylvania Co. v. Newmeyer, 129 Ind. 401, 28 N. E. 860; Willmott v. Corrigan Con. St. Ry. Co., 106 Mo. 535, 17 S. W. 490; Mexican Cent. Ry. Co. v. Lauricella, 87 Tex. 277, 28 S. W. 277, 47 Am. St. Rep. 103. As to effect of municipal ordinance, Cogswell v. West St. & N. E. Electric Ry. Co., 5 Wash. 46, 31 Pac. 411.

39 Chattanooga, R. & C. R. Co. v. Huggins, 89 Ga. 494, 15 S. E. 848; Tillett v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 118 N. C. 1031, 24 S. E. 111; Philadelphia & R. R. Co. v. Anderson, 94 Pa. 351, 39 Am. Rep. 787.

40 Hickenbottom v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 122 N. Y. 91, 25 N. E. 279; Allender v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 43 Iowa, 276; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Powers, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 228, 23 S. W. 325; Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Austin, 137 Ky. 611, 126 S. W. 144, 136 Am. St. Rep. 307; San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. v. Turney, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 626, 78 S. W. 256; Moffitt v. Connecticut Co., 86 Conn. 527, 86 Atl. 16.

41 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Long, 81 Tex. 253, 16 S. W. 1016, 26 Am. St.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »