Pay Passengers

As to limitation of the carrier's liability by contract, there is much the same conflict of opinion as in the case of the carrier of goods. Certainly the reasons against such contracts are much stronger in the case of the passenger carrier. A sane public policy relieves him of insuring liability, and holds him liable only for negligence, judged by a rational standard of care under the circumstances. Life and limb are of more transcendent importance than property. The safety of its citizens is, and must be, of primary importance to the state. The great majority of the cases, then, unite in holding that as to the pay passenger (whom the carrier must transport) the duty and liability of the common carrier for injuries to the passenger is fixed by law as necessarily inhering in the relation, and that this cannot be lowered or restricted by contract, however definite, however freely it may have been entered into, or however clear the consideration. Reduced rates are thus held not to be a consideration for which these safeguards of the law may in any way be diminished." These courts, therefore, hold that any contract attempting to limit the liability of the carrier for injuries to the passenger, when the passenger is carried for hire, is utterly and absolutely void. And one is a pay passenger who is really, but not ostensibly, paying for his transportation, as where one was carried on a so-called "drover's pass" issued to one accompanying cattle on which freight is duly paid. 56

54

A few of the courts have flatly denied the proposition just

54 New York C. R. Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357, 21 L. Ed. 627; Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Stevens, 95 U. S. 655, 24 L. Ed. 535; Doyle v. Fitchburg R. Co., 166 Mass. 492, 44 N. E. 611, 33 L. R. A. 844, 55 Am. St. Rep. 417; The Oregon, 133 Fed. 609, 68 C. C. A. 603; Rowdin v. Pennsylvania Ry. Co., 208 Pa. 623, 57 Atl. 1125; Davis v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 93 Wis. 470, 67 N. W. 16, 33 L. R. A. 654, 57 Am. St. Rep. 935; Saunders v. Southern Pac. Co., 13 Utah, 275, 44 Pac. 932; Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Faylor, 126 Ind. 126, 25 N. E. 869; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Lippman, 110 Ga. 665, 36 S. E. 202, 50 L. R. A. 673; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Bell, 100 Ky. 203, 38 S. W. 3; Checkley v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 257 Ill. 491, 100 N. E. 942, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1127, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1202; Kirkendall v. Union Pac. R. Co., 200 Fed. 197, 118 C. C. A. 383.

55 Richmond v. Southern Pac. Co., 41 Or. 54, 67 Pac. 947, 57 L. R. A. 616, 93 Am. St. Rep. 691; The Oregon, 133 Fed. 609, 68 C. C. A. 603. See, also, cases cited in the preceding note.

56 New York C. R. Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357, 21 L. Ed. 627; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Bell, 100 Ky. 203, 38 S. W. 3; Saunders v. Southern Pac. Co., 13 Utah, 275, 44 Pac. 932; Rowdin v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 208 Pa. 623, 57 Atl. 1125; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Williams, 200 Fed. 207, 118 C. C. A. 393. In the following cases, too, though traveling on a so-called pass, the passenger has been held a pay passenger: Williams v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 18 Utah, 210, 54 Pac. 991, 72 Am. St. Rep. 777; Nickles v. Seaboard Air Line

stated. Thus in a leading New York case " it was said: "A common carrier, in consideration of an abatement, in whole or in part, of his legal fare, may lawfully contract with a passenger that the latter will take upon himself the risk of damage from the negligence of agents or servants, for which the carrier would otherwise be liable; that public policy is satisfied by holding a railroad corporation bound to take the risk when the passenger chooses to pay the fare established by the Legislature. If he voluntarily and for any valuable consideration waives the right to indemnity, the contract is binding."

Some cases seek a middle ground, and permit the carrier by contract to exempt itself from liability for the negligence of its servants, provided such negligence be not gross.59 Gross negligence means here (as it does elsewhere, when the extremely unfortunate terminology of degrees of negligence is employed) the failure to exercise even slight care."0 This doctrine, however, has justly met with little favor.

In some states, the question is controlled by statutes." The general tenor of these is to hold the carrier rigidly to the accepted standard of the highest practicable care, and to permit no limitations whatsoever by contract.

Gratuitous Passengers-Express Messengers, etc.

In the absence of special contract, the carrier owes the same duty to the gratuitous passenger as to the one for hire.62 Somewhat different considerations apply, however, as to the two classes of passengers, in determining the question of the limitation of the carrier's liability by contract. By the weight of authority, it is held that, as to the gratuitous passenger, the carrier may by contract relieve itself from all liability due to negligence, though a number of courts make no distinction between pay passengers

63

Ry., 74 S. C. 102, 54 S. E. 255; Doyle v. Fitchburg R. Co., 166 Mass. 492, 44 N. E. 611, 33 L. R. A. 844, 55 Am. St. Rep. 417.

57 McCawley v. Ry. Co., L. R. 8 Q. B. (Eng.) 57; Kenney v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 125 N. Y. 422, 26 N. E. 626.

58 Bissell v. New York Cent. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 442, 82 Am. Dec. 369.

59 Arnold v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 83 Ill. 273, 25 Am. Rep. 386; Higgins v. New Orleans, M. & C. R. Co., 28 La. Ann. 133.

60 Jacksonville S. E. Ry. Co. v. Southworth, 135 Ill. 250, 25 N. E. 1093.

61 See, for example, Code Va. 1887, § 1296; Rev. St. Tex. 1895, art. 320; Code Iowa 1873, § 1308.

62 Ante, p. 530.

63 NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO. v. ADAMS, 192 U. S. 440, 24 Sup. Ct. 408, 48 L. Ed. 513, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 344; Muldoon v. Seattle City Ry. Co., 7 Wash. 528, 35 Pac. 422, 22 L. R. A. 794, 38 Am. St. Rep. 901; Boering v. Chesapeake Beach R. Co., 20 App. D. C. 500, affirmed 193 U. S. 442, 24 Sup. Ct. 515, 48 L. Ed. 742; Rogers v. Kennebec Steamboat Co., 86

and those traveling free, and deny the carrier's right to lessen his liability as much in the one case as in the other."

The majority holding, sanctioned by the United States Supreme Court, 65 seems to be sound. The carrier owes no legal duty to carry one gratuitously, and, having the right to refuse him utterly, the carrier should by contract be permitted to relieve himself of liability for his negligence. Free passengers constitute a very small part of the traveling public, and they offer no temptation to the carrier's servants to relax their care upon which must depend the safety of the pay passengers and usually that of the servants themselves. It would therefore seem that the carrier, in fixing the terms on which it will carry one whom it can refuse to carry, can validly stipulate that those accepting the favor of gratuitous transportation shall exempt the carrier from all liability for injuries. due to the carrier's negligence.

On somewhat the same basis as in the case of gratuitous passengers, the absence of any duty on the part of the carrier to transport them, contracts have been upheld relieving the carrier from liability for injuries due to his negligence in the case of express messengers," news vendors, and sleeping car porters.68

66

67

Me. 261, 29 Atl. 1069, 25 L. R. A. 491; Holly v. Southern R. Co., 119 Ga. 767, 47 S. E. 188; Griswold v. New York & N. E. R. Co., 53 Conn. 371, 4 Atl. 261, 55 Am. Rep. 115; Payne v. Terre Haute & I. Ry. Co., 157 Ind. 616, 62 N. E. 472, 56 L. R. A. 472; Quimby v. Boston & M. R. R. Co., 150 Mass. 365, 23 N. E. 205, 5 L. R. A. 846.

64 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of Texas v. Flood, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 197, 79 S. W. 1106; Jacobus v. Ry. Co., 20 Minn. 125 (Gil. 110), 18 Am. Rep. 360; Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. (C. C.) 102 Fed. 17; Huckstep v. St. Louis & H. R. Co., 166 Mo. App. 330, 148 S. W. 988. In some states, statutes have been interpreted as requiring a similar holding. folk & W. R. Co. v. Tanner, 100 Va. 379, 41 S. E. 721; Rose v. Des Moines Val. R. Co., 39 Iowa, 246.

Nor

65 NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO. v. ADAMS, 192 U. S. 440, 24 Sup. Ct. 408, 48 L. Ed. 513, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 344; Boering v. Chesapeake Beach R. Co., 193 U. S. 442, 24 Sup. Ct. 515, 48 L. Ed. 742.

66 Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. v. Voigt, 176 U. S. 498, 20 Sup. Ct. 385, 44 L. Ed. 560; Blank v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 182 Ill. 332, 55 N. E. 332; Bates v. Old Colony R. Co., 147 Mass. 255, 17 N. E. 633; Peterson v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 119 Wis. 197, 96 N. W. 532, 100 Am. St. Rep. 879; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Mahoney, 148 Ind. 196, 46 N. E. 917, 47 N. E. 464, 40 L. R. A. 101, 62 Am. St. Rep. 503. Such a contract was held invalid under the Virginia statute prohibiting carriers from lessening their common-law liability by contract. Shannon's Adm'r v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 104 Va. 645, 52 S. E. 376.

67 Griswold v. New York & N. E. R. Co., 53 Conn. 371, 4 Atl. 261, 55 Am. Rep. 115. See, also, as condemning such contracts, Starr v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 67 Minn. 18, 69 N. W. 632.

68 McDermon v. Southern Pac. Co. (C. C.) 122 Fed. 669; Chicago, R. I. &

LIABILITY OF THE CARRIER TO PERSONS OTHER

THAN PASSENGERS

191. The duty of exercising the highest degree of practicable care is owed by the carrier only to those who are technically passengers. To invitees, the carrier owes the duty of ordinary care; to licensees and trespassers, the carrier owes the duty to refrain from injuring them wantonly or willfully, and to exercise reasonable care to avoid hurting them after their danger is discovered.

Invitees

69

The invitee is one who is on the carrier's premises by virtue of the invitation of the latter, which may be either express or implied. Involved in such invitation is the carrier's duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises reasonably safe, and for any violation of this duty (which is legal negligence) the carrier is liable to the invitee for any damage proximately resulting therefrom."0

70

Thus one who comes to the station to escort a passenger to the train," a hackman driving a passenger to the station," one who

P. R. Co. v. Hamler, 215 Ill. 525, 74 N. E. 705, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 674, 106 Am. St. Rep. 187, 3 Ann. Cas. 42; Russell v. Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 157 Ind. 305, 61 N. E. 678, 55 L. R. A. 253, 87 Am. St. Rep. 214. That such contracts are invalid, see Jones v. St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co., 125 Mo. 666, 28 S. W. 883, 26 L. R. A. 718, 46 Am. St. Rep. 514.

69 Wright v. Boston & A. R. R., 142 Mass. 300, 7 N. E. 866; Turess v. New fork, S. & W. Ry. Co., 61 N. J. Law, 314, 40 Atl. 614; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Best, 66 Tex. 116, 18 S. W. 224; Wilson v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 18 R. I. 491, 29 Atl. 258; Whitley v. Southern Ry. Co., 122 N. C. 987, 29 S. E. 783; Morrow v. Atlanta & C. Air Line R. Co., 134 N. C. 92, 46 S. E. 12. 70 Cherokee Packet Co. v. Hilson, 95 Tenn. 1, 31 S. W. 737; Berry v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 60 S. W. 699, 22 Ky. Law Rep. 1410; Yarnell v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. Ry. Co., 113 Mo. 570, 21 S. W. 1, 18 L. R. A. 599; Dowd v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry., Co., 84 Wis. 105, 54 N. W. 24, 20 L. R. A. 527, 36 Am. St. Rep. 917; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Best, 66 Tex. 116, 18 S. W. 224; McKone v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 51 Mich. 601, 17 N. W. 74, 47 Am. Rep. 596; Stiles v. Atlanta & W. P. R. R., 65 Ga. 370; Tobin v. Portland, S. & P. R. Co., 59 Me. 183, 8 Am. Rep. 415; Lucas v. New Bedford & T. R. Co., 6 Gray (Mass.) 64, 66 Am. Dec. 406; Griswold v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 64 Wis. 652, 26 N. W. 101; Gautret v. Egerton, L. R. 2 C. P. (Eng.) 371; Watkins v. Railway Co., 37 L. T. N. S. (Eng.) 193; Blaisdell v. Long Island R. Co., 152 App. Div. 218, 136 N. Y. Supp. 768.

71 Little Rock & Ft. S. Ry. Co. v. Lawton, 55 Ark. 428, 18 S. W. 543, 15 L R. A. 434, 29 Am. St. Rep. 48; Davis v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 132 N. C. 291, 43 S. E. 840; Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Paris' Adm'r, 111 Va. 41, 69 S. E. 398, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 773.

72 Tobin v. Portland, S. & P. R. Co., 59 Me. 183, 8 Am. Rep. 415.

goes to the station to procure a time-table," a consignee of goods who is at the station in connection with receiving the goods," are all on the carrier's premises by virtue of either an express or implied invitation of the carrier. They are not passengers, but invitees, and to them is owed by the carrier the duty of exercising ordinary care for their protection and safety."

Licensees and Trespassers

The licensee is one on the carrier's premises, without objection on the part of the carrier, by its mere sufferance or permission, but without invitation.76 He has no business with the carrier, but is there entirely on his own personal concerns. The trespasser is a sheer intruder, for whose presence there is no warrant whatsoever." It is clear that, on simple principles of humanity, the carrier cannot willfully or wantonly injure either licensee "

78 Bradford v. Boston & M. R. R., 160 Mass. 392, 35 N. E. 1131. 74 Holmes v. Ry. Co., L. R. 2 Exch. (Eng.) 254, 6 Exch. 123.

78

or

75 See, also, Atlantic & B. R. Co. v. Owens, 123 Ga. 393, 51 S. E. 404; Hutchins v. Penobscot Bay & River Steamboat Co., 110 Me. 369, 86 Atl. 250; Catawissa R. Co. v. Armstrong, 49 Pa. 186; Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. State to Use of Bitzer, 58 Md. 374; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Frelka, 110 Ill. 498; Zeigler v. Danbury & M. R. Co., 52 Conn. 543, 2 Atl. 462; Pennsylvania Co. v. Gallagher, 40 Ohio St. 637, 48 Am. Rep. 689; In re Merrill, 54 Vt. 200; Vose v. Railway Co., 2 Hurl. & N. (Eng.) 728; Swainson v. Railway Co., L. R. 3 Exch. (Eng.) 341; Warburton v. Railway Co., L. R. 2 Exch. (Eng.) 30. And see, as to consignors, consignees, and their agents personally assisting in the reception or delivery of their freight, Wright v. Railway Co., L. R. 10 Q. B. (Eng.) 298, 1 Q. B. Div. 252; Foss v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 33 Minn. 392, 23 N. W. 553; Watson v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 66 Iowa, 164, 23 N. W. 380; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Hoffman, 67 Ill. 287; Newson v. New York Cent. R. Co., 29 N. Y. 383: New Orleans, J. & G. N. R. Co. v. Bailey, 40 Miss. 395; Shelbyville Lateral Branch R. Co. v. Lewark, 4 Ind. 471; Shelbyville Lateral Branch R. Co. v. Lynch, 4 Ind. 494; Dufour v. Central Pac. R. Co., 67 Cal. 319, 7 Pac. 769; Mark v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., 32 Minn. 208, 20 N. W. 131; Blakemore v. Railway Co., 8 El. & Bl. (Eng.) 1035; Goldstein v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 46 Wis. 404, 1 N. W. 37; Burns v. Boston & L. R. Co., 101 Mass. 50; Rogstad v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., 31 Minn. 208, 17 N. W. 287. 76 Bennett v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 102 U. S. 580, 26 L. Ed. 235; Poling v. Ohio River R. Co., 38 W. Va. 645, 18 S. E. 782, 24 L. R. A. 215; Weldon v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co., 2 Pennewill (Del.) 1, 43 Atl. 159; Benson v. Baltimore Traction Co., 77 Md. 535, 26 Atl. 973, 20 L. R. A. 714, 39 Am. St. Rep. 436; Wagner v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 124 Iowa, 462, 100 N. W. 332. 77 Planz v. Boston & A. R. Co., 157 Mass. 377, 32 N. E. 356, 17 L. R. A. 835; Handley v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 61 Kan. 237, 59 Pac. 271; Littlejohn v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 49 S. C. 12, 26 S. E. 967; Holmes v. Cromwell & Spencer Co., 51 La. Ann. 352, 25 South. 265; Rickert v. Southern Ry. Co., 123 N. C. 255, 31 S. E. 497.

78 Gillis v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 59 Pa. 129, 98 Am. Dec. 317; Pittsburgh, Ft. W. & C. Ry. Co. v. Bingham, 29 Ohio St. 364; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Godfrey, 71 Ill. 500, 22 Am. Rep. 112; Strong v. North Chicago St. R. Co.,