63

requisite care such injury could not have been foreseen and prevented, then no liability attaches to the carrier. Knowledge of the danger, or circumstances which should have imported such knowledge, on the part of the carrier, is thus always a condition precedent to the carrier's liability.

64

Thus, if a passenger, whose conduct had been entirely decorous and who gave no signs whatever to indicate that he would be disorderly, should suddenly strike a fellow passenger occupying the same seat with him, no liability would attach to the carrier. If such passenger, however, had been drunk and disorderly to an extent that the carrier knew or should have known of it, or if with threats he brandished a revolver in the presence of the carrier's servants, or showed unmistakable signs of violent insanity before the assault, this would import negligence on the carrier's part, rendering him liable for the wrong. In one case, when a number of persons became disorderly on the train, it was held that this should have been quelled, even though it involved the stopping of the train and the conductor's summoning the train crew and some of the passengers to his assistance. Particularly keen is this duty of the carrier to protect female passengers from indecent assault or from insulting or immodest language. There is no such privity between a railway company and a passenger or stranger so as to make it liable for the wrongful acts of the passenger or stranger. But if a passenger receives injury, which might have been reasonably anticipated or naturally expected, from Meyer v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 54 Fed. 116, 4 C. C. A. 221; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Barger, 80 Md. 30, 30 Atl. 561, 26 L. R. A. 220, 45 Am. St. Rep. 319; Partridge v. Woodland Steamboat Co., 66 N. J. Law, 290, 49 Atl. 726; Southern Ry. Co. v. O'Bryan, 112 Ga. 127, 37 S. E. 161; PITTSBURGH, FT. W. & C. RY. CO. v. HINDS, 53 Pa. 512, 91 Am. Dec. 224, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 334; Spires v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 92 S. C. 564, 75 S. E. 950.

66

63 Sullivan v. Jefferson Ave. Ry. Co., 133 Mo. 1, 34 S. W. 566, 32 L. R. A. 167; Connell's Ex'rs v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 93 Va. 44, 24 S. E. 467, 32 L. R. A. 792, 57 Am. St. Rep. 786; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Long, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 664, 36 S. W. 485; Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Arnold, 26 Ind. App. 190, 59 N. E. 394; Clarke's Adm'r v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 101 Ky. 34, 39 S. W. 840, 18 Ky. Law Rep. 1082, 36 L. R. A. 123; Id., 49 S. W. 1120, 20 Ky. Law Rep. 1839; Nute v. Boston & M. R. R., 214 Mass. 184, 100

N. E. 1099.

64 PITTSBURGH, FT. W. & C. RY. CO. v. HINDS, 53 Pa. 512, 91 Am. Dec. 224, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 334.

65 Lucy v. Chicago G. W. Ry. Co., 64 Minn. 7, 65 N. W. 944, 31 L. R. A. 551; Segal v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., 35 Tex. Civ. App. 517, 80 S. W. 233; Batton v. South & N. A. R. Co., 77 Ala. 591, 54 Am. Rep. 80.

66 PITTSBURGH, FT. W. & C. RY. CO. v. HINDS, 53 Pa. 512, 91 Am. Dec. 224, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 334. Nor will the wrong or negDOB.BAILM.-38

cne who is improperly received, or permitted to continue as a passenger, the carrier is then responsible."

Assaults on Passengers by the Carrier's Servants

So keen would be the wrong otherwise resulting that the carrier is held liable when the assault is committed by the carrier's servant while engaged in performing his duties, even though the assault was prompted by malice or vindictiveness toward the passenger, and was not strictly within the scope of the servant's employment. In such cases a sound public policy makes the car

68

ligence of the carrier be imputed to the passenger, so as to bar his remedy against a third person. Little v. Hackett, 116 U. S. 366, 6 Sup. Ct. 391, 29 L. Ed. 652.

67 Putnam v. Broadway & S. A. R. Co., 55 N. Y. 108, 14 Am. Rep. 190; Flint v. Norwich & N. Y. Transp. Co., 34 Conn. 554, 6 Blatchf. 158, Fed. Cas. No. 4,873; PITTSBURGH, FT. W. & C. RY. CO. v. HINDS, 53 Pa. 512, 91 Am. Dec. 224, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 334; Spohn v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 87 Mo. 74; Cobb v. Great Western Ry. Co. (1894) App. Cas. (Eng.) 419, 63 L. J. Q. B. 629. See cases cited in note 62.

68 Fick v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 68 Wis. 469, 32 N. W. 527, 60 Am. Rep. 878; Bryant v. Rich, 106 Mass. 180, 8 Am. Rep. 311; Craker v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 36 Wis. 657, 17 Am. Rep. 504; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Ballard, 85 Ky. 307, 3 S. W. 530, 7 Am. St. Rep. 600; Wabash Ry. Co. v. Savage, 110 Ind. 156, 9 N. E. 85; Heenrich v. Pullman Palace Car Co. (D. C.) 20 Fed. 100; Ramsden v. Boston & A. R. Co., 104 Mass. 117, 6 Am. Rep. 200; Chicago & E. R. Co. v. Flexman, 103 Ill. 546, 42 Am. Rep. 33. In some cases the fact of the retention of the employé by the carrier after knowledge of the wrongful act is deemed material, as indicating ratification. Goddard v. Grand Trunk Ry. of Canada, 57 Me. 202, 2 Am. Rep. 39; Bass v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 42 Wis. 654, 24 Am. Rep. 437. In Bryant v. Rich, 106 Mass. 180, 8 Am. Rep. 311, where the plaintiff, a passenger on a steamboat, was assaulted and injured by the steward and some of the table waiters, the defendant, as a common carrier, was held liable for the injury. In Craker v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 36 Wis. 657, 17 Am. Rep. 504, where the conduetor of a railroad train kissed a female passenger against her will, the court, in an elaborate opinion, held the railroad company liable for compensatory damages. It is there said: "We cannot think there is a question of the respondent's right to recover against the appellant for a tort which was a breach of the contract of carriage." In Sherley v. Billings, 8 Bush (Ky.) 147, 8 Am. Rep. 451, where a passenger on defendant's boat was assaulted and injured by an officer on the boat, the defendant was held liable. See, also, McKinley v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 44 Iowa, 314, 24 Am. Rep. 748, and New Orleans, St. L. & C. R. Co. v. Burke, 53 Miss. 200, 24 Am. Rep. 689; Chicago & E. R. Co. v. Flexman, 103 Ill. 546, 42 Am. Rep. 33. In Goddard v. Grand Trunk Ry. of Canada, 57 Me. 202, 2 Am. Rep. 39, in discussing this question, the court says: "The carrier's obligation is to carry his passenger safely and properly, and to treat him respectfully; and, if he intrusts the performance of this duty to his servants, the law holds him responsible for the manner in which they execute the trust. He must not only protect his passengers against the violence and insults of strangers and copassengers, but, a fortiori, against the violence and insults of his own serv

*

*

rier's duty to the passenger practically absolute. So helpless is the passenger under such circumstances, when his natural protectors turn against him, that even though the servant turns entirely away from his employment and is actuated only by his own evil motives, this is no defense to the carrier."

72

71

The rule has been most frequently applied in cases of assaults upon passengers while in trains by conductors and brakemen," while in a number of cases the victims have been women. In a leading case, holding the carrier liable when a woman passenger was unwillingly and forcibly kissed by a conductor, the court used this striking analogy: "If one hire out his dog to guard sheep against wolves, and the dog sleep while the wolf makes way with a sheep, the owner is liable; but if the dog play wolf, and devour a sheep, the owner is not liable. The bare statement of the proposition seems a reductio ad absurdum." In flagrant cases of unjustifiable assaults on passengers, the courts have deemed the wrong so gross that not only compensatory, but punitive, damages have been granted against the carrier.73

ants. If this duty to the passenger is not performed,-if this protection is not furnished, but, on the contrary, the passenger is assaulted and insulted through the negligence of the carrier's servant, the carrier is necessarily responsible." Chicago & E. R. Co. v. Flexman, 103 Ill. 546, 42 Am. Rep. 33. 69 Dennis v. Pittsburgh & C. S. R. R., 165 Pa. 624, 31 Atl. 52; Wabash Ry. Co. v. Savage, 110 Ind. 156, 9 N. E. 85; Smith v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 48 W. Va. 69, 35 S. E. 834; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Henry, 55 Kan. 715, 41 Pac. 952, 29 L. R. A. 465; Lampkin v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 106 Ala. 287, 17 South. 448; Lafitte v. New Orleans, C. & L. R. Co., 43 La. Ann. 34, 8 South. 701, 12 L. R. A. 337; Goddard v. Grand Trunk Ry. of Canada, 57 Me. 202, 2 Am. Rep. 39; Citizens' St. Ry. Co. v. Clark, 33 Ind. App. 190, 71 N. E. 53, 104 Am. St. Rep. 249; Alexander v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co., 129 La. 959, 57 South. 283.

70 See cases cited in preceding note.

71 Campbell v. Pullman Palace Car Co. (C. C.) 42 Fed. 484; Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Campbell, 154 U. S. 513, 14 Sup. Ct. 1151, 38 L. Ed. 1069; Keene v. Lizardi, 6 La. 315, 26 Am. Dec. 478; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Tarkington, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 353, 66 S. W. 137; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Ballard, 85 Ky. 307, 3 S. W. 530, 7 Am. St. Rep. 600.

72 Craker v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 36 Wis. 657, 17 Am. Rep. 504.

78 Goddard v. Grand Trunk Ry. of Canada, 57 Me. 202, 2 Am. Rep. 39: East Tennessee, V. & G. Ry. Co. v. Fleetwood, 90 Ga. 23, 15 S. E. 778; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Ballard, 85 Ky. 307, 3 S. W. 530, 7 Am. St. Rep. 600; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Barger, 80 Md. 23, 30 Atl. 560, 26 L. R. A. 220, 45 Am. St. Rep. 319. See post, § 209.

SAME CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF THE

PASSENGER

185. Even though the carrier has been negligent, resulting in injury to the passenger, there can be no recovery when the negligence of the passenger himself has proximately contributed to the injury. Negligence of the passenger in such cases is the failure to exercise ordinary care.

In General

It is a wise principle of jurisprudence that one cannot hold another responsible for an injury which one has brought upon oneself. One is in general responsible for the consequences of one's own acts, and if these acts bring injury to their author, the law properly withholds the right of recovering damages for such injury from another. The principle is a general one, but finds frequent application in actions by passengers against the carrier.

In general, therefore, though the carrier's negligence is partially responsible for the injury, the carrier escapes liability if the passenger, too, has been negligent and his negligence has proximately contributed to the injury." When the negligence of the carrier and that of the passenger both concurred in producing the injury, the law will not endeavor to apportion the comparative responsibility, but will leave the passenger without remedy, viewing him as the author of his own misfortune." Of course, if the car

74 Butterfield v. Forrester, 11 East (Eng.) 60; Gibbon v. Paynton, 4 Burr. (Eng.) 2298; Gorden v. Butts, 2 N. J. Law, 334; Rathbun v. Payne, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 399; Victor Coal Co. v. Muir, 20 Colo. 321, 38 Pac. 378, 26 L. R. A. 435, 46 Am. St. Rep. 299.

75 Central Ry. Co. v. Smith, 74 Md. 212, 21 Atl. 706; Odom v. St. Louis S. W. R. Co., 45 La. Ann. 1201, 14 South. 734, 23 L. R. A. 152; Renneker v. South Carolina Ry. Co., 20 S. C. 219; Little v. Hackett, 116 U. S. 366, 6 Sup. Ct. 391, 29 L. Ed. 652; Graham v. McNeill, 20 Wash. 466, 55 Pac. 631, 43 L. R. A. 300, 72 Am. St. Rep. 121; Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Pickleseimer, 85 Va. 798, 10 S. E. 44; Fisher v. West Virginia & P. R. Co., 42 W. Va. 183, 24 S. E. 570, 33 L. R. A. 69; Blevins v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 3 Okl. 512, 41 Pac. 92; Sweet v. Birmingham R. & Electric Co., 145 Ala. 667, 39 South. 767; Weber v. Kansas City Cable Ry. Co., 100 Mo. 194, 12 S. W. 804, 13 S. W. 587, 7 L. R. A. 819, 18 Am. St. Rep. 541; PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. v. ASPELL, 23 Pa. 147, 62 Am. Dec. 323, Doble Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 336; FLETCHER v. BOSTON & M. R. R., 187 Mass. 463, 73 N. E. 552, 105 Am. St. Rep. 414, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 335; Ward v. International R. Co., 206 N. Y. 83, 99 N. E. 262, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1170; Dawson v. Maryland Electric Ry., 119 Md. 373, 86 Atl. 1041.

76 Waterbury v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 104 Iowa, 32, 73 N. W. 341;

rier is not negligent, there is no liability, and the defense of the passenger's contributory negligence is unnecessary; but when the negligence of the carrier is shown, causing injury to the passenger, this makes out a case of liability, and the defense of contributory negligence is then highly important, so that upon it the whole case may turn.

Test of Passenger's Negligence

The passenger is negligent, in this connection, when he fails to exercise ordinary care, which is usually judged by that care which the reasonably prudent man would exercise for his safety under similar circumstances." If the passenger fails to use such care, he is negligent; if he does exercise such care, there is no negligence, in which case the defense of contributory negligence necessarily. falls to the ground. Ordinary care is, of course, a relative term, to be judged according to the varying circumstances of each case."

So many varying factors enter into and complicate this problem that it is possible here to mention briefly only a few representative cases. A person in normal possession of his senses must make reasonable use of them to learn of danger, particularly if there are indications that such danger is imminent or impending.79 Again an act on the part of one whose ability to use his limbs or whose senses of sight and hearing are impaired might be negligence, while the same act might not be negligence to one whose unim

Conroy v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., 96 Wis. 243, 70 N. W. 486, 38 L. R. A. 419; Coburn v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co., 198 Pa. 436, 48 Atl. 265; Chattanooga, R. & C. R. Co. v. Huggins, 89 Ga. 494, 15 S. E. 848; Ward v. International R. Co., 206 N. Y. 83, 99 N. E. 262, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1170. 77 Galloway v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 87 Iowa, 458, 54 N. W. 447; West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Manning, 170 Ill. 417, 48 N. E. 958; Bland v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 65 Cal. 626, 4 Pac. 672; Clerc v. Morgan's Louisiana & T. R. & S. S. Co., 107 La. 370, 31 So. 886, 90 Am. St. Rep. 319; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Best, 66 Tex. 116, 18 S. W. 224; Topp v. United Rys. & Electric Co., 99 Md. 630, 59 Atl. 52, 1 Ann. Cas. 912; Carroll v. Charleston & S. R. Co., 65 S. C. 378, 43 S. E. 870; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Dallas' Adm'x, 150 Ky. 442, 150 S. W. 536; Haas v. Wichita R. & Light Co., 89 Kan. 613, 132 Pac. 195, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 974; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Dallas' Adm'x, 150 Ky. 442, 150 S. W. 536..

78 Protheno v. Citizens' St. Ry. Co., 134 Ind. 431, 33 N. E. 765; Mitchell v Southern Pac. R. Co., 87 Cal. 62, 25 Pac. 245, 11 L. R. A. 130; Seymour v Citizens' Ry. Co., 114 Mo. 266, 21 S. W. 739; Highland Ave. & B. R. Co. v Donovan, 94 Ala. 299, 10 South. 139; Biggers v. New York Cent. & H. R. R Co., 157 App. Div. 245, 141 N. Y. Supp. 827.

79 Piper v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 156 N. Y. 224, 50 N. E. 851, 41 L. R. A. 724, 66 Am. St. Rep. 560; Fraser v. California St. Cable Co., 146 Cal. 714, 81 Pac. 29; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Davidson, 64 Fed. 301, 12 C. C. A. 118; Biggers v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 157 App. Div. 245, 141 N. Y. Supp. 827.