7

projecting his arm beyond the window of the car. Crossing railroad tracks to reach a train or leave it is not necessarily contributory negligence; but a passenger is thus negligent who for the same purpose crawls under cars attached to a locomotive." Protruding one's head from a car window is negligence, however, as is one's occupying uselessly and voluntarily an exposed position, and riding, under similar circumstances, on the platform of a moving train. There may be circumstances, however, in the 161; CHICAGO & A. R. CO. v. ARNOL, 144 Ill. 261, 33 N. E. 204, 19 L. R. A. 313, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 332; Wylde v. Northern R. Co. of New Jersey, 53 N. Y. 156; Trumbull v. Erickson, 97 Fed. 891, 38 C. C. A. 536; Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Humphrey, 83 Miss. 721, 36 South. 154; Lane v. Spokane Falls & N. Ry. Co., 21 Wash. 119, 57 Pac. 367, 46 L. R. A. 153, 75 Am. St. Rep. 821. But see De Soucey v. Manhattan R. Co. (Com. P. L.) 15 N. Y. Supp. 108; Harris v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 89 Mo. 233, 1 S. W. 325, 58 Am. Rep. 111; Felton v. Horner, 97 Tenn. 579, 37 S. W. 696; Wallace v. Western N. C. R. Co., 98 N. C. 494, 4 S. E. 503, 2 Am. St. Rep. 346; East Tennessee, V. & G. Ry. Co. v. Green, 95 Ga. 736, 22 S. E. 658. 3 Contributory negligence as a matter of law. Georgia Pac. Ry. Co. v. Underwood, 90 Ala. 49, 8 South. 116, 24 Am. St. Rep. 756; Clark's Adm'r v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 101 Ky. 34, 39 S. W. 840, 36 L. R. A. 123; Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Scott, 88 Va. 958, 14 S. E. 763, 16 L. R. A. 91; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Roeser, 69 Neb. 62, 95 N. W. 68. Question for the jury. Clerc v. Morgan's Louisiana & T. R. & S. S. Co., 107 La. 370, 31 South. 886, 90 Am. St. Rep. 319; Georgetown & T. Ry. Co. v. Smith, 25 App. D. C. 259, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 274; Spencer v. Milwaukee & P. du C. R. Co., 17 Wis. 487, 84 Am. Dec. 758; McCord v. Atlanta & C. Air Line R. Co., 134 N. C. 53, 45 S. E. 1031; Tucker v. Buffalo Ry. Co., 169 N. Y. 589, 62 N. E. 1101.

• Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. State to Use of Chambers, 81 Md. 371, 32 Atl. 201; Warner v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 168 U. S. 339, 18 Sup. Ct. 68, 42 L. Ed. 491; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Shean, 18 Colo. 368, 33 Pac. 108, 20 L. R. A. 729; Betts v. Lehigh Val. R. Co., 191 Pa. 575, 43 Atl. 362, 45 L. R. A. 261.

5 Smith v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 55 Iowa, 33, 7 N. W. 398; Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Copeland, 61 Ala. 376.

6 Shelton v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 39 S. W. 842, 19 Ky. Law Rep. 215; Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Roeser, 69 Neb. 62, 95 N. W. 68; Benedict v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 86 Minn. 224, 90 N. W. 360, 57 L. R. A. 639, 91 Am. St. Rep. 345; Christensen v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 137 Fed. 708, 70 C. C. A. 657; Huber v. Cedar Rapids & M. C. R. Co., 124 Iowa, 556, 100 N. W. 478.

7 JACKSON v. CRILLY, 16 Colo. 103, 26 Pac. 331, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 338; Hewes v. Chicago & E. I. R. Co., 217 Ill. 500, 75 N. E. 515; Garguzza v. Anchor Line, 97 App. Div. 352, 89 N. Y. Supp. 1049; Renaud v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 210 Mass. 553, 97 N. E. 98, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 689.

8 Benedict v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 86 Minn. 224, 90 N. W. 360, 57 L. R. A. 639, 91 Am. St. Rep. 345; Jammison v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 92 Va. 327, 23 S. E. 758, 53 Am. St. Rep. 813; Meyere v. Nashville, C. & St. L. R., 110 Tenn. 166, 72 S. W. 114; Denny v. North Carolina R. Co., 132 N. C. 340, 43 S. E. 847; Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Gilbert, 6 Ala. App. 372, 60 South. 542.

last case, when this is not negligence, as when there is no apparent danger, and the car is full or poorly ventilated, and the passenger needs fresh air.

SAME-SAME-LAST CLEAR CHANCE AND IMPUTATION OF NEGLIGENCE

187. The passenger's contributory negligence is not available as a defense, when the carrier, after knowledge of the peril of the passenger, failed to exercise proper care to avert the injury. This is the doctrine of the "last clear chance." When the carrier's negligence proximately results in injury to the passenger, the fact that the wrong of a third person also contributed to the injury is no defense. The doctrine of the imputation of the negligence of the father or custodian to a child, that of a husband to the wife, or that of a carrier to a passenger, has been very generally discredited.

Last Clear Chance

The contributory negligence of the passenger is ordinarily a complete defense to the carrier, when the latter is sued for injuries due to the carrier's negligence.10 This defense ceases to be such, however, when, after the discovery of the danger to which the passenger's negligence has exposed him, the carrier still had an opportunity to avoid the accident by the exercise of requisite care, and yet failed to take advantage of this last clear chance." This doctrine is usually rested on one or both of two grounds. One is that under such circumstances the passenger's negligence becomes a remote cause of the injury, and that the carrier's subsequent negligence is here the proximate cause of the harm, to which

Morgan v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 138 Mich. 626, 101 N. W. 836, 70 L. R. A. 609.

10 See ante, § 185.

11 Radley v. Railway Co., 1 App. Cas. (Eng.) 754; Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co. v. Kassen, 49 Ohio St. 230, 31 N. E. 282, 16 L. R. A. 674; Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Schmidt, 117 Ill. App. 213, affirmed 217 Ill. 396, 75 N. E. 383; Eikenberry v. St. Louis Transit Co., 103 Mo. App. 442, 80 S. W. 360; Hensler v. Stix, 113 Mo. App. 162, 88 S. W. 108; Woodward v. West Side St. Ry. Co., 71 Wis. 625, 38 N. W. 347; Holmes v. South Pac. Coast Ry. Co., 97 Cal. 161, 31 Pac. 834; Louisville City R. Co. v. Hudgins, 124 Ky. 79, 98 S. W. 275, 30 Ky. Law Rep. 316, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 152; Wheeler v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 70 N. H. 607, 50 Atl. 103, 54 L. R. A. 955; Townsend v. Houston Electric Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 154 S. W. 629; Norfolk & A. Terminal Co. v. Rotolo, 195 Fed. 231, 115 C. C. A. 183.

cause alone the law will look. The second ground considers the carrier's negligence in such a case to be, not mere negligence, but rather a willful and wanton wrong; and, in the case of willful or wanton acts (as distinguished from mere negligent acts) it is a general principle that the contributory negligence of the person injured is not a defense.12 The prior imprudent conduct of the passenger is properly held not to permit any relaxation of the carrier's duty, after the discovery of the danger to which the passenger is thereby exposed.

This doctrine of the last clear chance (originating in Davies v. Mann 13 [1842], the celebrated case of the donkey negligently fettered in the highway injured by the subsequent negligence of the defendant) is of general application. It finds a fruitful field, however, in suits against passenger carriers in spite of strenuous attempts by the latter either to discredit the doctrine or to narrow the field in which it may be applied. Thus, when a passenger negligently places his hand in a place in which it is apt to be injured by a door, he may still recover, if he can show that the carrier's servants with knowledge of his danger, negligently closed the door and injured his hand. Again, the passenger's negligence in boarding a street car was held to be no defense when the carrier's servant negligently failed to stop the car, after knowledge that the passenger was being dragged by the moving car.15 The doctrine is very frequently invoked against the carrier by nonpassengers injured on the right of way of a railroad.10

Imputation of Negligence

It is a sound principle that, when the passenger or other person is injured by the carrier's negligence, the latter cannot escape liability on the ground that the wrong of a third person also concurred in producing the injury." Under such circumstances, the wrong of the third person does not serve to diminish the rights of

12 That contributory negligence is no defense to the carrier's willful wrong, see Chicago, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Bills, 118 Ind. 221, 20 N. E. 775; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Frazier, 93 Ala. 45, 9 South. 303, 30 Am. St. Rep. 28. 13 10 Mees. & W. (Eng.) 546.

14 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Overall, 82 Tex. 247, 18 S. W. 142.

15 Woodward v. West Side St. Ry. Co., 71 Wis. 625, 38 N. W. 347.

16 Ward v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 96 Me. 136, 51 Atl. 947; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Zantzinger, 93 Tex. 64, 53 S. W. 379, 47 L. R. A. 282, 77 Am. St. Rep. 829; Reid v. Atlantic & C. Air Line R. Co., 140 N. C. 146, 52 S. E. 307; Sites v. Knott, 197 Mo. 684, 96 S. W. 206; Wall v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 56 App. Div. 599, 67 N. Y. Supp. 519.

17 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Friel, 77 Fed. 126, 23 C. C. A. 77; Malmsten v. Marquette, H. & O. R. Co., 49 Mich. 94, 13 N. W. 373; O'Rourke v. Lindell Ry. Co., 142 Mo. 342, 44 S. W. 254.

18

the passenger or other person against such carrier, but, on the contrary, operates to add to these rights that also of suing such third person." Of course, if such third person is the agent or servant of the passenger or other plaintiff, then his acts, within the scope of his employment, are not legally those of a third person, but rather of the passenger or such other plaintiff himself.19

Both in the case of passengers and nonpassengers, under the doctrine of the imputation of negligence (which somehow crept into our jurisprudence), it was sought to impute to a child the negligence of a parent or one having the child in charge, in order to bar a recovery by a child; to impute the husband's negligence to the wife, and to impute the negligence of one in charge of the vehicle of a third person to those riding in such vehicle. This was done as to the child in an early New York case 20 (1839); and in England the negligence of an omnibus driver was imputed to one traveling in such omnibus, so as to bar a recovery for injuries due also to the negligence of a third person.21 The doctrine of this latter English case was expressly overruled in England,22 and the whole doctrine of the imputation of negligence has been very generally discredited by the later American cases.28

When the parent sues the carrier for injuries to the child for loss of services to which the parent has a legal right, then the parent's negligence ought to be a defense, for otherwise the parent

18 Louisville & C. Packet Co. v. Mulligan, 77 S. W. 704, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 1287; Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. v. Kleespies, 39 Ind. App. 151, 76 N. E. 1015, 78 N. E. 252; Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Hines, 183 Ill. 482, 56 N. E. 177. 19 Central Pass. Ry. Co. v. Chatterson, 14 Ky. Law Rep. 663; Markowitz v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 186 Mo. 350, 85 S. W. 351, 69 L. R. A. 389; Read v. City & Suburban Ry. Co., 115 Ga. 366, 41 S. E. 629.

20 Hartfield v. Roper, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 615, 34 Am. Dec. 273. The imputation of the negligence of one having the child in charge to the child has been upheld in Waite v. Railway Co., El. Bl. & El. (Eng.) 719; McGeary v. Eastern R. Co., 135 Mass. 363; Reed v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., 34 Minn. 557, 27 N. W. 77; McQuilken v. Central Pac. R. Co., 64 Cal. 463, 2 Pac. 46; Kyne v. Wilmington & N. R. Co., 8 Houst. (Del.) 185, 14 Atl. 922; Brown v. European & N. A. R. Co., 58 Me. 384.

21 Thorogood v. Bryan (1849) 8 C. B. (Eng.) 115.

22 The Bernina (1888) 13 App. Cas. (Eng.) 1.

23 Little v. Hackett, 116 U. S. 366, 6 Sup. Ct. 391, 29 L. Ed. 652; Markham v. Houston Direct Nav. Co., 73 Tex. 247, 11 S. W. 131; State v. Boston & M. R. Co., 80 Me. 430, 15 Atl. 36; Becke v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 102 Mo. 544, 13 S. W. 1053, 9 L. R. A. 157; Tompkins v. Clay St. R. Co., 66 Cal. 163, 4 Pac. 1165; Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. Hogeland, 66 Md. 149, 7 Atl. 105, 59 Am. Rep. 159; Frank Bird Transfer Co. v. Krug, 30 Ind. App. 602, 65 N. E. 309; Little Rock & M. R. Co. v. Harrell, 58 Ark. 454, 25 S. W. 117; New York, P. & N. R. Co. v. Cooper, 85 Va. 939, 9 S. E. 321.

24

profits by his own wrong. It is believed, however, that there is no sound reason in law or morals why, when the infant sues himself, the negligence of his parent or custodian, concurring with the carrier's wrong to produce the injury, should be a defense to the carrier.25 So, too, the husband's negligence should be a bar to his own suit, or when he joins with the wife as plaintiff and has an interest in the amount recovered,26 but not to the wife's own suit 27 to recover on her own behalf for the injuries she has received.

SAME-PRESUMPTION AND BURDEN OF PROOF AS TO NEGLIGENCE

188. The mere fact of injury to the passenger, standing alone, does not create a presumption of negligence against the carrier; but when the proof of the injury shows that, according to ordinary human experience, the injury would not have been received, had the proper degree of care been exercised by the carrier, then proof of the injury gives rise to a prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the carrier.

24 Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Groseclose's Adm'r, 88 Va. 267, 13 S. E. 454, 29 Am. St. Rep. 718; Winters v. Kansas City Cable Ry. Co., 99 Mo. 509, 12 S. W. 652, 6 L. R. A. 536, 17 Am. St. Rep. 591; Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Wilcox, 138 Ill. 370, 27 N. E. 899, 21 L. R. A. 76; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Colum, 72 Ark. 1, 77 S. W. 596; City Pass. Ry. Co. v. Schuster, 113 Pa. 412, 6 Atl. 269, 57 Am. Rep. 471; O'Shea v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 79 App. Div. 254, 79 N. Y. Supp. 890; Mattson v. Minnesota & N. W. R. Co., 95 Minn. 477, 104 N. W. 443, 70 L. R. A. 503, 111 Am. St. Rep. 483, 5 Ann. Cas. 498; Williams v. South & N. A. R. Co., 91 Ala. 635, 9 South. 77.

25 Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Groseclose's Adm'r, 88 Va. 267, 13 S. E. 454, 29 Am. St. Rep. 718; Warren v. Manchester St. Ry. Co., 70 N. H. 352, 47 Atl. 735; Chicago G. W. R. Co. v. Kowalski, 92 Fed. 310, 34 C. C. A. 1; Westbrook v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 66 Miss. 560, 6 South. 321, 14 Am. St. Rep. 587; Nashville R. R. Co. v. Howard, 112 Tenn. 107, 78 S. W. 1098, 64 L. R. A. 437; South Covington & C. St. Ry. Co. v. Herrklotz, 104 Ky. 400, 47 S. W. 265; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Rexroad, 59 Ark. 180, 26 S. W. 1037; Newman v. Phillipsburg Horse-Car R. Co., 52 N. J. Law, 446, 19 Atl. 1102, 8 L. R. A. 842; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Kingston, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 24, 68 S. W. 518.

26 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Goodenough, 55 N. J. Law, 577, 28 Atl. 3, 22 L. R. A. 460; Horandt v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 78 N. J. Law, 190, 73 Atl. 93; McFadden v. Santa Ana, O. & T. St. Ry. Co., 87 Cal. 468, 25 Pac. 681, 11 L. R. A. 252.

27 Finley v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 71 Minn. 471, 74 N. W. 174; Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Creek, 130 Ind. 139, 29 N. E. 481, 14 L. R. A. 733; Lewin v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 41 App. Div. 89, 58 N. Y. Supp. 113; Atlanta & C. Air Line Ry. Co. v. Gravitt, 93 Ga. 369, 20 S. E. 550, 26 L. R. A. 553, 44 Am. St. Rep. 145.