79

trespasser. Again, it seems that, after the peril of the licensee or trespasser is perceived, the duty then arises on the carrier's part to use reasonable care to avert any injury to them.8° The carrier owes them, however, not even ordinary care as to keeping the premises safe. 81 Coming for their own convenience, they are held to take the risks in this respect. The following were held to be licensees: One who took refuge in a station during a storm; 82 one who was on the carrier's platform merely as a sight-seer; 83 one going to a railroad telegraph office to pay a social visit to the operator.84

Trespassing Children

In general, the rules set out above apply to children as well as to adults. Many courts make an exception, however, as to trespassing children, under the doctrine of "alluring danger." This doctrine imposes on the carrier the duty not to leave exposed any instrumentality that is dangerous to young children, which would naturally attract them, in a place to which they might be expected to resort.85 Most of the cases are concerned with railroad turntables. This doctrine is questionable, at best. Some courts are

86

116 Ill. App. 246; Jenkins v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 124 Ga. 986, 53 S. E. 379; Burbank v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 42 La. Ann. 1156, 8 South. 580, 11 L. R. A. 720. See, also, cases cited in note 76.

79 Massell v. Boston El. R. Co., 191 Mass. 491, 78 N. E. 108; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Mehlsack, 131 Ill. 61, 22 N. E. 812, 19 Am. St. Rep. 17; Farber v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 116 Mo. 81, 22 S. W. 631, 20 L. R. A. 350; MORGAN v. OREGON SHORT LINE R. CO., 27 Utah, 92, 74 Pac. 523, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 346; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Harris, 71 Miss. 74, 14 South. 263.

so Johnson v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., 123 Iowa, 224, 98 N. W. 642; Wilson v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 66 Kan. 183, 71 Pac. 282; Pettit v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 58 Minn. 120, 59 N. W. 1082; Farber v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 116 Mo. 81, 22 S. W. 631, 20 L. R. A. 350.

81 See cases cited in note 78.

82 Pittsburgh, Ft. W. & C. Ry. Co. v. Bingham, 29 Ohio St. 364.

83 Gillis v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 59 Pa. 129, 98 Am. Dec. 317.

84 Woolwine's Adm'r v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 36 W. Va. 329, 15 S. E. 81, 16 L. R. A. 271, 32 Am. St. Rep. 859.

85 Barrett v. Southern Pac. Co., 91 Cal. 296, 27 Pac. 666, 25 Am. St. Rep. 186; Holt v. Spokane & P. R. Co., 3 Idaho (Hasb.) 703, 35 Pac. 39; Consolidated Electric Light & Power Co. v. Healy, 65 Kan. 798, 70 Pac. 884; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Popp, 96 Ky. 99, 27 S. W. 992; Wynn v. City & Suburban Ry. of Savannah, 91 Ga. 344, 17 S. E. 649.

86 Sioux City & P. R. Co. v. Stout, 17 Wall. 657, 21 L. Ed. 745; Ilwaco Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Hedrich, 1 Wash. 446, 25 Pac. 335, 22 Am. St. Rep. 169; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Krayenbuhl, 65 Neb. 889, 91 N. W. 880, 59 L. R. A. 920; Twist v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 39 Minn. 164, 39 N. W. 402, 12 Am. St. Rep. 626; Callahan v. Eel River & E. R. Co., 92 Cal. 89, 28 Pac. 104.

87

inclined to limit strictly its application, while others, it seems with even better reason, have repudiated altogether the entire doctrine, and recognize no such exception to the general rule of the liability of the carrier to trespassers.

88

87 Sullivan v. Boston & A. R. Co., 156 Mass. 378, 31 N. E. 128; Moran v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 134 Mo. 641, 36 S. W. 659, 33 L. R. A. 755, 56 Am. St. Rep. 543; Ann Arbor R. Co. v. Kinz, 68 Ohio St. 210, 67 N. E. 479; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Edwards, 90 Tex. 65, 36 S. W. 430, 32 L. R. A. 825; Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. Bockhoven, 53 Kan. 279, 36 Pac. 322.

88 Frost v. Eastern R. R. Co., 64 N. H. 220, 9 Atl. 790, 10 Am. St. Rep. 396; Bates v. Ry. Co., 90 Tenn. 36, 15 S. W. 1069, 25 Am. St. Rep. 665; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Reich, 61 N. J. Law, 635, 40 Atl. 682, 41 L. R. A. 831, 68 Am. St. Rep. 727; Walsh v. Fitchburg R. Co., 145 N. Y. 301, 39 N. E. 1068, 27 L. R. A. 624, 45 Am. St. Rep. 615; Daniels v. New York & N. E. R. Co., 154 Mass. 349, 28 N. E. 283, 13 L. R. A. 248, 26 Am. St. Rep. 253; Walker's Adm'r v. Potomac, F. & P. R. Co., 105 Va. 226, 53 S. E. 113, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 80, 115 Am. St. Rep. 871, 8 Ann. Cas. 862.

CHAPTER XIX

THE RIGHTS OF THE COMMON CARRIER OF PASSENGERS

192. The Carrier's Right to Make Regulations.

193. The Right to Compensation.

194.

Tickets.

195. Wrong Ticket Given to Passenger by the Carrier.

THE CARRIER'S RIGHT TO MAKE REGULATIONS

192. The common carrier of passengers has a right to make and enforce regulations for the conduct of his business, provided these regulations be reasonable.

Basis of the Right

The same general considerations obtain here that are applicable to the regulations of the common carrier of goods. The nature of passenger traffic, the movement and volition of the passenger, the speed of the modern passenger train or boat, the added danger, and the comparative seriousness of accidents, all, however, tend to bring the regulations of the carrier of passengers into greater prominence and importance than those of the companion carrier of goods.

The real basis of this right lies in this fact: That only in this way can the passenger carrier properly live up to the very high degree of care imposed on him by law. Hence the right is not so much an independent as a derivative one. In a broad sense, then, this right on the carrier's part exists as a means of conferring a benefit on the traveling public, rather than as giving the carrier the opportunity to impose burdens on them. The efficiency, the promptness, and the safety of passenger traffic are in no small. degree bound up in the carrier's right to prescribe suitable regulations for the conduct of his business, and to enforce these regulations promptly, and often summarily, after they are made. Thus the carrier's power here grows out of, as it is limited by, his responsibility, and the relation between the two is really that of means and end.

Regulations Must be Reasonable

The test of any regulation is its reasonableness. Unless, in the light of what has just been said, the particular regulation is rea

sonable, it is not valid and binding on the passenger.1 In considering reasonableness, in this connection, the courts take into consideration the purpose of the regulation, and its effectiveness in accomplishing that purpose, as well as its general relation to the broad object of affording comfort and safety to the passenger, or of protecting the carrier against fraud, wrong, or imposition. Reasonableness is a relative term, and the size of the traffic and the method of conveyance are factors of general import, while there may be local and unique circumstances to be taken into consideration. Subject to the test of reasonableness, however, the field of the carrier's regulations is unusually broad, covering the many details in connection with the management of its conveyances, the

1 Day v. Owen, 5 Mich. 520, 72 Am. Dec. 62; Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 55 Ill. 185, 8 Am. Rep. 641; Hoffbauer v. D. & N. W. R. Co., 52 Iowa, 342, 3 N. W. 121, 35 Am. Rep. 278; State v. Chovin, 7 Iowa, 204; Hibbard v. New York & E. R. Co., 15 N. Y. 455; Vedder v. Fellows, 20 N. Y. 126; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Langdon, 92 Pa. 21, 37 Am. Rep. 651; Du Laurans v. First Division of St. Paul & P. R. Co., 15 Minn. 49 (Gil. 29), 2 Am. Rep. 102; Gleason v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 32 Wis. 85, 14 Am. Rep. 716; Bass v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 36 Wis. 450, 17 Am. Rep. 495; State v. Overton, 24 N. J. Law, 435, 61 Am. Dec. 671; Brown v. Memphis & C. R. Co. (C. C.) 4 Fed. 37; Id., 7 Fed. 51; Ft. Scott, W. & W. Ry. Co. v. Sparks, 55 Kan. 288, 39 Pac. 1032; Coyle v. Southern Ry. Co., 112 Ga. 121, 37 S. E. 163; South Fla. R. Co. v. Rhodes, 25 Fla. 40, 5 South. 633, 3 L. R. A. 733, 23 Am. St. Rep. 506; Gregory v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 100 Iowa, 345, 69 N. W. 532; Brown v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & G. R. Co., 38 Kan. 634, 19 Pac. 942; Deery v. Camden & A. R. Co., 163 Pa. 403, 30 Atl. 162; Ohage v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 200 Fed. 128, 118 C. C. A. 302; Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Anderson, 3 Ala. App. 424, 57 South. 103; BIRMINGHAM R., LIGHT & POWER CO. v. MCDONOUGH, 153 Ala. 122, 44 South. 960, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 445, 127 Am. St. Rep. 18, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 349; FORSEE v. ALABAMA G. S. R. CO., 63 Miss. 66, 56 Am. Rep. 801, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 351; Norman v. East Carolina R. Co., 161 N. C. 330, 77 S. E. 345; Renaud v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 210 Mass. 553, 97 N. E. 98, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 689.

2 Hibbard v. New York & E. R. Co., 15 N. Y. 455; Church v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 6 S. D. 235, 60 N. W. 854, 26 L. R. A. 616; Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Wright, 18 Ind. App. 125, 47 N. E. 491; Cherry v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 191 Mo. 489, 90 S. W. 381, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 695, 109 Am. St. Rep. 830; Paber v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co., 62 Minn. 433, 64 N. W. 918, 36 L. R. A. 789; Gregory v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 100 Iowa, 345, 69 N. W. 532; McCook v. Northup, 65 Ark. 225, 45 S. W. 547.

3 See Dowd v. Albany Ry., 47 App. Div. 202, 62 N. Y. Supp. 179 (taking dangerous articles into the cars); Armstrong v. Montgomery St. Ry. Co., 123 Ala. 233, 26 South. 349 (leaving street cars while they are in motion); McCook v. Northup, 65 Ark. 225, 45 S. W. 547 (tickets on freight trains); Rowe v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 71 App. Div. 474, 75 N. Y. Supp. 893 (employés off duty riding in front seat of street car); Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Motes, 117 Ga. 923, 43 S. E. 990, 62 L. R. A. 507, 97 Am. St. Rep. 223 (patrons sleeping on benches in waiting rooms).

carrier's dominion over its right of way and stations, and the conduct of carrier's servants and passengers. The right to enforce these reasonable regulations by the ejection of the person breaking them has already been considered.*

morrow.

When there is no dispute as to the facts, the reasonableness of a regulation is held to be a question of law for the court." "The necessity of holding this to be a question of law, and therefore within the province of the court to settle, is apparent from the consideration that it is only by so holding that fixed and permanent regulations can be established. If this question is to be left to juries, one rule would be applied by them to-day and another toA fixed system for the control of the vast interests connected with railways would be impossible, while such a system is essential equally to the roads and to the public." • A regulation has been held reasonable that requires passengers to ride in the passenger cars, and not in the baggage cars or on the engine; also one declining to admit passengers to the coaches until half an hour before the time scheduled for starting, one forbidding passengers from riding on the platform of a car, one prohibiting the presence of dogs in passenger coaches,10 and one prohibiting the checking of baggage until the passenger has procured a ticket. A regulation, however, forbidding passengers to

4 Ante, p. 551.

11

9

6

Gregory v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 100 Iowa, 345, 69 N. W. 532; St. Louis, A. & T. Ry. Co. v. Hardy, 55 Ark. 134, 17 S. W. 711; State v. Lake Roland El. Ry. Co., 84 Md. 163, 34 Atl. 1130; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Motes, 117 Ga. 923, 43 S. E. 990, 62 L. R. A. 507, 97 Am. St. Rep. 223; South Florida Ry. Co. v. Rhodes, 25 Fla. 40, 5 South. 633, 3 L. R. A. 733, 23 Am. St. Rep. 506; Montgomery v. Buffalo Ry. Co., 24 App. Div. 454, 48 N. Y. Supp. 849, affirmed 165 N. Y. 139, 58 N. E. 770; Ohage v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 200 Fed. 128, 118 C. C. A. 302; BIRMINGHAM R., LIGHT & POWER CO. v. MCDONOUGH, 153 Ala. 122, 44 South. 960, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 445, 127 Am. St. Rep. 18, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 349.

• Lawrence, J., in Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Whittemore, 43 Ill. 420, 92 Am. Dec. 138.

7 O'Donnell v. Allegheny Valley R. Co., 59 Pa. 239, 98 Am. Dec. 336; Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. Thomas' Adm'r, 79 Ky. 160, 42 Am. Rep. 208; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Clemmons, 55 Tex. 88, 40 Am. Rep. 799.

8 Decker v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 3 Okl. 553, 41 Pac. 610.

Macon & W. R. Co. v. Johnson, 38 Ga. 409; Wills v. Lynn & B. R. Co., 129 Mass. 351; Renaud v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 210 Mass. 553, 97 N. E. 98, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 689.

10 Gregory v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 100 Iowa, 345, 69 N. W. 532; O'Gorman v. New York & Q. C. R. Co., 96 App. Div. 594, 89 N. Y. Supp. 589; Hull

v. Boston & M. R. R., 210 Mass. 159, 96 N. E. 58, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 406, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 1147.

11 Coffee v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 76 Miss. 569, 25 South. 157, 45 L. R. A. 112, 71 Am. St. Rep. 535.