Damages

62

As to the measure of damages, in cases of the kind under discussion, the usual rule is to give to the passenger the usual compensatory damages for his ejection. In the computation of these damages, the following elements have been held to be proper: Increased expense, delay, inconvenience, suffering, both physical and mental, including humiliation and indignity. In a few exceptional cases, punitive damages have been held proper."

When the ticket, on its face, shows that it is not good for the trip in question, it is generally and properly held that the passenger cannot resist the ejection. If he does, he cannot recover for injuries due to resistance, when only sufficient force is used to eject him. When, however, the ticket is apparently good, it is held that he can lawfully resist any attempts to eject him.““ Form of Action

65

Many courts have insisted that the passenger's action must be in contract, for the breach of the carrier's contract." With better reason, however, other courts have declined thus to limit the

62 Hot Springs R. Co. v. Deloney, 65 Ark. 182, 45 S. W. 351, 67 Am. St. Rep. 913; Lexington & E. Ry. Co. v. Lyons, 104 Ky. 23, 46 S. W. 209; Georgia R. R. v. Olds, 77 Ga. 673; Lake Erie & W. Ry. Co. v. Fix, 88 Ind. 381, 45 Am. Rep. 464.

63 Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. v. Foster, 134 Ala. 244, 32 South. 773, 92 Am. St. Rep. 25; Southern Kansas Ry. Co. v. Rice, 38 Kan. 398, 16 Pac. 817, 5 Am. St. Rep. 766; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Bambrey (Pa.) 16 Atl. 67; Moore v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 1 Ga. App. 514, 58 S. E. 63; Illinois Cent. Ry. Co. v. Jackson, 117 Ky. 900, 79 S. W. 1187; Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. v. Carson, 145 Ky. 81, 140 S. W. 71. In a few cases the recovery is limited to nominal damages. Brown v. Rapid R. Co., 134 Mich. 591, 96 N. W. 925; Burn v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 153 Ill. App. 319.

64 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Harper, 83 Miss. 560, 35 South. 764, 64 L. R. A. 283, 102 Am. St. Rep. 469; Cowen v. Winters, 96 Fed. 929, 37 C. C. A. 628; Calloway v. Mellett, 15 Ind. App. 366, 44 N. E. 198, 57 Am. St. Rep. 238; Southern Ry. Co. v. Wood, 114 Ga. 140, 39 S. E. 894, 55 L. R. A. 536; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Walsh, 47 N. J. Law, 548, 4 Atl. 323.

65 FREDERICK v. MARQUETTE, H. & O. R. CO., 37 Mich. 342, 26 Am. Rep. 531, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 357; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Connell, 112 Ill. 295, 54 Am. Rep. 238; Peabody v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co,, 21 Or. 121, 26 Pac. 1053, 12 L. R. A. 823.

66 Ellsworth v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 95 Iowa, 98, 63 N. W. 584, 29 L. R. A. 173. See, also, New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Winter, 143 U. S. 60, 12 Sup. Ct. 356, 36 L. Ed. 71; Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Wolfe, 128 Ind. 347, 27 N. E. 606, 25 Am. St. Rep. 436; Denver Tramway Co. v. Reid, 4 Colo. App. 500, 36 Pac. 557.

67 Western Maryland R. Co. v. Stocksdale, 83 Md. 245, 34 Atl. 880; McKay v. Ohio River Ry. Co., 34 W. Va. 65, 11 S. E. 737, 9 L. R. A. 132, 26 Am. St. Rep. 913; FREDERICK v. MARQUETTE, H. & O. R. CO., 37 Mich. 342, 26 Am. Rep. 531, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 357.

scope of the passenger's action and have permitted it to be brought in tort 68 for the negligent act of the ticket agent, or other servant of the carrier, to whose wrong is due the fact that the ticket furnished to the passenger is not a proper one.

Another question presented to the courts with varying results is the duty of the passenger to avoid ejection by paying again his fare. This he must do, according to some courts, even though the wrong of the carrier is admitted, in order to minimize the damages flowing from such wrong. That this is a prudent line of action is unquestioned; but is the passenger obliged to adopt it? It is believed that it is unfair to compel a passenger to pay again, when he is not at fault in having the wrong ticket." He should not be required thus to anticipate the carrier's wrong, which is somewhat different from minimizing the consequences after the wrong has been committed. Nor should he be thus vicariously compelled to purchase a right that should already be his. This doctrine of compelling the passenger to pay again his fare under penalty of being denied à recovery for his ejection, it has been said," is analogous to "a claim of exemption from liability for an assault because the wrongdoer first offered his victim a choice between assault and extortion."

68 SLOANE v. SOUTHERN CAL. RY. CO., 111 Cal. 668, 44 Pac. 320, 32 L. R. A. 193, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 378; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Street, 26 Ind. App. 224, 59 N. E. 404; Hot Springs Ry. Co. v. Deloney, 65 Ark. 177, 45 S. W. 351, 67 Am. St. Rep. 913; Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Roberts, 91 Ga. 513, 18 S. E. 315; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Hine, 121 Ala. 234, 25 South. 857.

69 White v. Grand Rapids & I. R. Co., 107 Mich. 681, 65 N. W. 521; Pouilin v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 52 Fed. 197, 3 C. C. A. 23, 17 L. R. A. 800; Southern Pac. Co. v. Patterson, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 451, 27 S. W. 194; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Connell, 112 Ill. 295, 54 Am. Rep. 238; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hogue, 50 Kan. 40, 31 Pac. 698; Bradshaw v. South Boston R. Co., 135 Mass. 409, 46 Am. Rep. 481; Burn v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 153 Ill. App. 319.

70 Lake Erie & W. Ry. Co. v. Fix, 88 Ind. 381, 45 Am. Rep. 464; Zagelmeyer v. Cincinnati S. & M. R. Co., 102 Mich. 214, 60 N. W. 436, 47 Am. St. Rep. 514; Krueger v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 68 Minn. 445, 71 N. W. 683, 64 Am. St. Rep. 487; Ellsworth v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 95 Iowa, 98, 63 N. W. 584, 29 L. R. A. 173; Sprenger v. Tacoma Traction Co., 15 Wash. 660, 47 Pac. 17, 43 L. R. A. 706; St. Louis, A. & T. Ry. Co. v. Mackie, 71 Tex. 491, 9 S. W. 451, 1 L. R. A. 667, 10 Am. St. Rep. 766; Head v. Georgia Pac. Ry. Co., 79 Ga. 358, 7 S. E. 217, 11 Am. St. Rep. 434; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Breckinridge, 99 Ky. 1, 34 S. W. 702; Yorton v. Milwaukee, L. S. & W. Ry. Co., 62 Wis. 367, 21 N. W. 516, 23 N. W. 401.

71 43 L. R. A. 716, note.

CHAPTER XX

THE BAGGAGE OF THE PASSENGER

196. Duty and Liability of the Carrier as to the Baggage of the Passenger. 197. What is Baggage.

198. Liability of Carrier for Merchandise Shipped as Baggage.

199. Passenger Must Either Own the Baggage or Have a Special Interest in It. 200. Passenger Accompanying the Baggage.

201. Passenger's Custody of the Baggage.

DUTY AND LIABILITY OF THE CARRIER AS TO THE BAGGAGE OF THE PASSENGER

196. The common carrier of passengers is bound, without other compensation than the payment of fare, to receive and

to carry a reasonable amount of baggage for the passenger.

As to such baggage, the carrier is liable as a carrier of goods; that is, subject to the same exceptions, he is liable as an insurer for any loss of, or injury to, such baggage.

Duty to Carry the Passenger's Baggage

As an incident of his own transportation, the passenger has a right to have a reasonable amount of baggage carried with him.1

1 Hasbrouck v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 202 N. Y. 363, 95 N. E. 808, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 537, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 1150; Wells v. Great Northern R. Co., 59 Or. 165, 114 Pac. 92, 116 Pac. 1070, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 818, 825; McIntosh v. Augusta & A. R. Co., 87 S. C. 181, 69 S. E. 159, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 889; Wood v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 98 Me. 98, 56 Atl. 457, 99 Am. St. Rep. 339; Runyan v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 61 N. J. Law, 537, 41 Atl. 367, 43 L. R. A. 284, 68 Am. St. Rep. 711; Gomm v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co., 52 Wash. 685, 101 Pac. 361, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 537; Burnes v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 167 Mo. App. 62, 150 S. W. 1100. A carrier may refuse to carry merchandise as personal baggage, or anything except what is useful and necessary, or useful for the passenger's personal comfort and convenience. Collins v. Boston & M. R. R., 10 Cush. (Mass.) 506; Smith v. Boston & M. R. R., 44 N. H. 325. It follows that the carrier may require information as to value and kind as a condition precedent to the transportation of articles offered as baggage. Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Irvine, 84 Va. 553, 5 S. E. 532; Id., 85 Va. 217, 7 S. E. 233, 1 L. R. A. 110; RAILROAD CO. v. FRALOFF, 100 U. S. 24, 25 L. Ed. 531, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 364. It was at first held that carriers were not liable for the traveler's baggage unless a distinct price had been paid, on the ground that the carrier is liable only in respect to his reward, and that the compensation should be in proportion to the risk. Middleton v. Fowler, 1 Salk. (Eng.) 282. Subse

The obligation to transport the passenger, resting on the carrier, implies an equal obligation to carry his baggage. Thus arises the carrier's duty to receive and carry, to a reasonable amount, the passenger's baggage. Nor can the carrier demand for this any extra compensation save the regular fare for the passenger's transportation, which is supposed to be fixed at a rate that will include the transportation both of the baggage and the passenger.2 Liability of Carrier as to the Passenger's Baggage

Though there was at one time some doubt on the subject,3 the carrier is, as to his liability for the passenger's baggage, a common carrier of goods, and his responsibility is measured accordingly. The carrier is therefore an insurer of the goods against loss or injury, with the same exceptions that obtain as to the carrier of goods-act of God; public enemy; inherent nature of the goods; act of owner; law. Those principles and analogies

quently, by common usage, a reasonable amount of baggage was deemed to be included with the fare of the passenger; but the courts should not allow this custom to be abused, and, under pretense of baggage, include articles not within the scope of the term, or intent of the parties, thereby defrauding the carrier of his just compensation, besides subjecting him to unknown hazards. Pardee v. Drew, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 459; Orange County Bank v. Brown, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 85, 24 Am. Dec. 129. The traveling public have the right to stop and receive their baggage at any regular station or stopping place for the train on which they may be traveling, and any regulation that deprives them of that right is necessarily arbitrary, unreasonable, and illegal. Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Lyon, 123 Pa. 140, 16 Atl. 607, 2 L. R. A. 489, 10 Am. St. Rep. 517.

2 Wells v. Great Northern R. Co., 59 Or. 165, 114 Pac. 92, 116 Pac. 1070, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 818, 825; Hasbrouck v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 202 N. Y. 363, 95 N. E. 808, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 537, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 1150; Wood v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 98 Me. 98, 56 Atl. 457, 99 Am. St. Rep. 339; Orange County Bank v. Brown, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 85, 24 Am. Dec. 129; Hollister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 234, 32 Am. Dec. 455; Cole v. Goodwin, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 251, 32 Am. Dec. 470. A carrier is liable for the loss of the luggage of a passenger whose fare was paid by another. The fare paid by a passenger to a carrier includes transportation of his baggage. Roberts v. Koehler (C. C.) 30 Fed. 94.

8 Stewart v. Railway Co., 3 Hurl. & C. (Eng.) 138.

4 Dill v. South Carolina R. Co., 7 Rich. (S. C.) 158, 62 Am. Dec. 407; Ranchau v. Rutland R. Co., 71 Vt. 142, 43 Atl. 11, 76 Am. St. Rep. 761; Ringwalt v. Wabash R. Co., 45 Neb. 760, 64 N. W. 219; Indiana, D. & W. R. Co. v. Zilly, 20 Ind. App. 569, 51 N. E. 141; Hubbard v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 112 Mo. App. 459, 87 S. W. 52; Wood v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 98 Me. 98, 56 Atl. 457, 99 Am. St. Rep. 339; Lewis v. Ocean S. S. Co., 12 Ga. App. 191, 76 S. Ę. 1073; Hollister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 234, 32 Am. Dec. 455. Carriers are liable for the loss of baggage by theft, even when shipped as freight. The State of New York, 7 Ben. 450, Fed. Cas. No. 13,328; Walsh v. The H. M. Wright, Newb. 494, Fed. Cas. No. 17,115.

Ford v. Atlantic Coast R. Co., 8 Ga. App. 295, 68 S. E. 1072; Saunders

that determine the insuring liability of the common carrier of goods, which have been discussed at some length," are equally applicable here. So true is this that, though one carried free is a passenger, yet as to his baggage, no compensation being received for its carriage, the carrier is a mere gratuitous bailee, and liable accordingly only for its negligence, which is here its failure to exercise even slight care. Again, the whole subject of limitation of the carrier's liability as to baggage is governed by the rules. controlling such limitations by common carriers of goods."

8

V. Southern R. Co., 128 Fed. 15, 62 C. C. A. 523; Brick v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 145 N. C. 203, 58 S. E. 1073, 122 Am. St. Rep. 440, 13 Ann. Cas. 328; Oakes v. Northern Pac. R. R. Co., 20 Or. 392, 26 Pac. 230, 12 L. R. A. 318, 23 Am. St. Rep. 126; Wolf v. Grand Rapids, Holland & Chicago Ry., 149 Mich. 75, 112 N. W. 732; McKibbin v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 78 Minn. 232, 80 N. W. 1052; Springer v. Pullman Co., 234 Pa. 172, 83 Atl. 98; Macrow v. Railway Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. (Eng.) 612; Southern R. Co. v. Foster, 7 Ala. App. 487, 60 So. 993. As to delay in transporting the baggage, see Brooks v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 58 Or. 387, 114 Pac. 949; Sperry v. Consolidated R. Co., 79 Conn. 565, 65 Atl. 962, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 907, 118 Am. St. Rep. 169, 9 Ann. Cas. 199. At common law a carrier was liable as bailee for negligence in the loss of baggage, even though the relation of passenger and carrier did not exist. Robinson v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 203 N. Y. 627, 97 N. E. 1115, affirming order 145 App. Div. 391, 129 N. Y. Supp. 1030. Where a passenger shows delivery of his baggage to a carrier and the carrier's failure to deliver the same, he makes out a prima facie case, and the burden is on the carrier to show that it has not converted the property. Fleischman, Morris & Co. v. Southern Ry., 76 S. C. 237, 56 S. E. 974, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 519.

• See ante, §§ 116-118.

7 Ante, p. 530.

8 White v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. of Texas (Tex. Civ. App.) 86 S. W. 962; Holly v. Southern R. Co., 119 Ga. 767, 47 S. E. 188; Rice v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 22 Ill. App. 644.

The distinction heretofore discussed (section 194) between the mere function of a ticket as a voucher or receipt (when its receipt alone does not make its stipulations binding on the passenger) and the ticket which on its face purports to be a contract (when it becomes binding on the passenger) is of great importance here; for limitations on the carrier's part, either as to weight or value of the baggage, or reducing the carrier's liability from that of an insurer to that of the ordinary bailee for hire, are usually contained in the passenger's ticket. A ticket limiting the carrier's liability for loss of baggage is ineffective, where the passenger does not know of the stipulation and is excusable for not knowing. Martin v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 121 App. Div. 552, 106 N. Y. Supp. 226. A provision in a ticket sold at a reduced rate limiting baggage to wearing apparel only and the liability of the carrier therefor to $50 is not unreasonable or unjust as matter of law. Gardiner v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 201 N. Y. 387, 94 N. E. 876, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 826, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 281. A ticket issued to a person at a reduced rate and limiting liability for baggage to wearing apparel not exceeding $100 in value does not relieve the carrier from accountability for the