Commencement and Termination of Insuring Liability

The carrier's insuring liability commences when the passenger, at a reasonable time before the departure of the conveyance on which the passenger and baggage are to be transported, delivers the baggage to, and it is accepted by, the carrier.10 When the baggage is delivered and kept by the carrier in advance of such reasonable time, for the passenger's convenience, the carrier's liability would seem to be that merely of an ordinary bailee, liable only for his negligence." The purchase of a ticket or checking the value of the baggage lost through the negligence of its agents. Wells v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 59 Or. 165, 114 Pac. 92, 116 Pac. 1070, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 818, 825. Where plaintiff was traveling on a pass under an agreement thereon that the railroad company should not be liable for damage to property of such person by negligence of its agents or otherwise, such person could not recover for loss of baggage, except for willful misconduct. Hutto v. Southern Ry. Co., 75 S. C. 295, 55 S. E. 445. In the absence of fraud, a passenger signing a ticket containing stipulations limiting the liability of the carrier cannot urge that she was not aware of the stipulations. Rose v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 35 Mont. 70, 88 Pac. 767, 119 Am. St. Rep. 836. A carrier of passengers may bona fide agree on the value of baggage; but a mere general limitation as to value in a printed form applicable to the baggage of all passengers, though signed by the carrier and the passenger, is not a bona fide agreement, but an arbitrary preadjustment of damages. Southern Ry. Co. v. Dinkins & Davidson Hardware Co., 139 Ga. 332, 77 S. E. 147, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 806. See, also, on this subject, 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; Hooker v. Boston & M. R. R. Co., 209 Mass. 598, 95 N. E. 945, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 669; Gomm v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co., 52 Wash. 685, 101 Pac. 361, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 537; Black v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 82 S. C. 478, 64 S. E. 418. For interesting recent cases as to the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act (Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, § 20, 24 Stat. 386 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3169] as amended by Act June 29, 1906, c. 3591, § 7, pars. 11, 12, 34 Stat. 595 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1307]), and limitation of the carriers' liability as to baggage, see Ford v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. (Minn.) 143 N. W. 249, and Barstow v. New York, N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 158 App. Div. 665, 143 N. Y. Supp. 983. See, also, note on these cases, 1 Va. Law Review, 405.

10 Williams v. Southern R. Co., 155 N. C. 260, 71 S. E. 346; Shaw v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 40 Minn. 144, 41 N. W. 548; Hofford v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 43 Pa. Super. Ct. 303; Goodbar v. Wabash Ry. Co., 53 Mo. App. 434; Moffat v. Long Island R. Co., 123 App. Div. 719, 107 N. Y. Supp. 1113. As a rule, notice must be given to an authorized agent of a carrier when baggage is taken to a railroad station or other place where baggage is usually received, in order to make the carrier liable, but the carrier may bind itself by a custom of treating baggage as received when left at a given place, without other notice. Williams v. Southern Ry. Co., 155 N. C. 260, 71 S. E. 346; Houston, E. & W. T. R. Co. v. Anderson (Tex. Civ. App.) 147 S. W. 353. See, also, Lennon v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 127 Iowa, 431, 103 N. W. 343.

11 Fleischman, Morris Co. v. Southern Ry., 76 S. C. 237, 56 S. E. 974, 9 L R. A. (N. S.) 519; Houston, E. & W. T. Ry. Co. v. Anderson (Tex. Civ. App.)

baggage on such ticket is not essential to the commencement of the carrier's insuring liability.12

The exceptional liability of a carrier of baggage as an insurer is terminated when the passenger has had a reasonable time to remove it after it has been unloaded by the carrier, and placed in a situation for delivery.13 No notice to the passenger of the arrival of the baggage has been held necessary in any state, since it arrives, in the ordinary course of transportation, on the same train as the owner.14 In actual practice, the passenger is required to take his baggage away almost immediately.15 In other words, a reasonable time, as to the passenger's baggage, is a very short time. Thus it has been held in several cases that, when the train carrying the passenger and his baggage arrived at night, it was an unreasonable delay to permit it to remain until the next morning.16 Of course, any longer delay would relieve the carrier of his in

147 S. W. 353; Hofford v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 43 Pa. Super. Ct. 303; Williams v. Southern R. Co., 155 N. C. 260, 71 S. E. 346.

12 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Foster, 104 Ind. 293, 4 N. E. 20, 54 Am. Rep. 319; Houston, E. & W. T. Ry. Co. v. Anderson (Tex. Civ. App.) 147 S. W. 353; Green v. Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co., 41 Iowa, 410.

13 Kaplan v. Titus, 140 App. Div. 416, 125 N. Y. Supp. 397; Charlotte Trouser Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 139 N. C. 382, 51 S. E. 973; Tallman v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 136 Wis. 648, 118 N. W. 205, 16 Ann. Cas. 711; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Jones, 150 Ala. 379, 43 South. 575, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1240, 124 Am. St. Rep. 71; Blackmore v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 162 Mo. 455, 62 S. W. 993; Moyer v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 31 Pa. Super. Ct. 559; Patsheider v. Ry. Co. (1878) 3 Exch. Div. (Eng.) 153. See, also, Milwaukee Mirror & Art Glass Works v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 148 Wis. 173, 134 N. W. 379, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 383; Levi v. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co., 157 Mo. App. 536, 138 S. W. 699.

14 Moffatt v. Long Island R. Co., 123 App. Div. 719, 107 N. Y. Supp. 1113; Indiana, D. & W. R. Co. v. Zilly, 20 Ind. App. 569, 51 N. E. 141.

15 Tallman v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 136 Wis. 648, 118 N. W. 205, 16 Ann. Cas. 711; Central R. Co. v. Wiegand, 79 Fed. 991, 25 C. C. A. 681; Moyer v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 31 Pa. Super. Ct. 559; Southern Ry. Co. v. Rosenheim & Sons, 1 Ga. App. 766, 58 S. E. 81; Campbell v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 78 Neb. 479, 111 N. W. 126; Church v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (Sup.) 116 N. Y. Supp. 560; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Terrell (Tex. Civ. App.) 72 S. W. 430.

16 Campbell v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 78 Neb. 479, 111 N. W. 126; Southern R. Co. v. Rosenheim & Sons, 1 Ga. App. 766, 58 S. E. 81; Jacobs v. Tutt (C. C.) 33 Fed. 412; Louisville, C. & L. R. Co. v. Mahan, 8 Bush (Ky.) 184; Roth v. Buffalo & S. L. R. Co., 34 N. Y. 548, 90 Am. Dec. 736; Ross v. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co., 4 Mo. App. 582. The fact that the arrival is on Sunday, and there is a statute prohibiting travel on that day, will not excuse the delay. Jones v. Norwich & N. Y. Transp. Co., 50 Barb. (N. Y.) 193. Nor will the illness of the passenger. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Boyce, 73 Ill. 510, 24 Am. Rep. 268.

suring liability." But, if the fault of the carrier has caused the delay, its liability as such is not terminated.18 If the passenger has not removed his baggage within a reasonable time, the carrier is not relieved of all liability, but continues responsible as a warehouseman,1o and thus liable only for negligence.

Connecting Carriers

Considerations similar to those affecting the liability of the carrier of goods 20 govern the liability of the initial carrier and connecting carriers for the passengers' baggage. It is perfectly clear that the carrier on whose line the loss or injury occurred is responsible. In the absence of a contract assuming such liability, the responsibility of the initial carrier is limited to its own line."

21

17 Hoeger v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 63 Wis. 100, 23 N. W. 435, 53 Am. Rep. 271; Burnell v. New York Cent. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 184, 6 Am. Rep. 61; Indiana, D. & W. R. Co. v. Zilly, 20 Ind. App. 569, 51 N. E. 141.

18 Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Phillips, 93 Ga. 801, 20 S. E. 646; Wald v. Louisville, E. & St. L. R. Co., 92 Ky. 645, 18 S. W. 850; Dininny v. New York & N. H. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 546; Kansas City, Ft. S. & G. R. Co. v. Morrison, 34 Kan. 502, 9 Pac. 225, 55 Am. Rep. 252; Prickett v. New Orleans Anchor Line, 13 Mo. App. 436. But see Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Addizoat, 17 Ill. App. 632. Where a boat was delayed, and arrived in port during the night, it was held that the voyage was not ended until passengers who remained on board by the master's permission had had a reasonable time on the next morning to leave the boat and to remove their baggage, and that the carrier was liable to passengers so remaining on board for loss of bag. gage occasioned by the accidental burning of the vessel during the night. Prickett v. New Orleans Anchor Line, supra.

19 Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Jones, 150 Ala. 379, 43 South. 575, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1240, 124 Am. St. Rep. 71; Kressin v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 119 App. Div. 86, 103 N. Y. Supp. 1002; Burnell v. New York Cent. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 184, 6 Am. Rep. 61; Mattison v. New York Cent. R. Co., 57 N. Y. 552; Fairfax v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 67 N. Y. 11; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Fairclough, 52 Ill. 106; Bartholomew v. St. Louis, J. & C. R. Co., 53 Ill. 227, 5 Am. Rep. 45; Mote v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 27 Iowa, 22, 1 Am. Rep. 212; Rome R. R. v. Wimberly, 75 Ga. 316, 58 Am. Rep. 468. As to what is a proper place to store the baggage, see Hoeger v. Chicago, M. & St..P. Ry. Co., 63 Wis. 100, 23 N. W. 435, 53 Am. Rep. 271; St. Louis & C. R. Co. v. Hardway, 17 Ill. App. 321. See, also, cases cited in note 13. 20 See ante, § 145.

21 Glasco v. New York Cent. R. Co., 36 Barb. (N. Y.) 557; Barter v. Wheeler, 49 N. H. 9, 6 Am. Rep. 434; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Roach, 35 Kan. 740, 12 Pac. 93, 57 Am. Rep. 199; Hooper v. Ry. Co., 50 L. J. C. P. (Eng.) 103; Toledo, P. & W. Ry. Co. v. Merriman, 52 Ill. 123, 4 Am. Rep. 590.

22 Lessard v. Boston & M. R. R., 69 N. H. 648, 45 Atl. 712; Mauritz v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. (C. C.) 23 Fed. 765; Soviero v. Westcott Exp. Co., 47 Misc. Rep. 596, 94 N. Y. Supp. 375; Talcott v. Wabash R. Co., 188 N. Y. 608, 81 N. E. 1176; Burnes v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 167 Mo. App. 62, 150 S. W. 1100. As to the effect of the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act in making the initial carrier responsible for the de

By contract,23 however, and this is usually held to be the case when the initial carrier sells a through ticket and checks the passenger's baggage all the way to his destination, the first carrier is liable for loss or injury occurring on any of the connecting lines.24 One carrier, too, may become liable, as to default on the part of another carrier, by virtue of partnership arrangements between the carriers.25

Liability of Carrier for Articles Not Baggage and Not Accepted as Such

The liability of the carrier for articles not technically baggage is a mooted question, when no notice is given to the carrier of the nature of such articles. That, under such circumstances, the carrier is not an insurer, is universally agreed.20 Some courts, however, hold the carrier liable as a bailee, in which case it is usually held that he is liable as a gratuitous bailee for his failure to exercise even slight care.27 Other courts, however, hold that the carrier is not liable for his negligence or failure to exercise even the slightest degree of care.28

faults of connecting carriers, see House v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 30 S. D. 321, 138 N. W. 809.

23 Little Rock & H. S. W. R. Co. v. Record, 74 Ark. 125, 85 S. W. 421, 109 Am. St. Rep. 67; Maskos v. American Steamship Co. (C. C.) 11 Fed. 698; Hubbard v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 112 Mo. App. 459, 87 S. W. 52. Where an initial carrier was authorized to and did sell a through ticket over other connecting roads, notice to the agent of the initial carrier of the contents of one of plaintiff's trunks was notice to the other connecting carriers. Southern Ry. Co. v. Foster, 7 Ala. App. 487, 60 South. 993.

24 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Roach, 35 Kan. 740, 12 Pac. 93, 57 Am. Rep. 199; Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. Washington, 74 Ark. 9, 85 S. W. 406, 69 L. R. A. 65, 109 Am. St. Rep. 61; Hutchins ▾ Pennsylvania R. Co., 181 N. Y. 186, 73 N. E. 972, 106 Am. St. Rep. 537; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Campbell, 36 Ohio St. 647, 38 Am. Rep. 617.

25 Wolf v. Grand Rapids, Holland & Chicago Ry., 149 Mich. 75, 112 N. W. 732; Najac v. Boston & L. R. Co., 7 Allen (Mass.) 329, 83 Am. Dec. 686; Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Berry, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 3, 71 S. W. 326; Hart v. Rensselaer & S. R. Co., 8 N. Y. 37, 59 Am. Dec. 447.

26 See cases cited in notes 27 and 28.

27 Brick v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 145 N. C. 203, 58 S. E. 1073, 122 Am. St. Rep. 440, 13 Ann. Cas. 328; Toledo & Ohio Cent. Ry. Co. v. Bowler & Burdick Co., 9 O. C. D. 465; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Miller, 103 Ark. 37, 145 S. W. 889, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 634; Illinois Southern R. Co. v. Antoon, 122 Ill. App. 359; Smith v. Boston & M. R. R., 44 N. H. 325.

28 Dunlap v. International Steamboat Co., 98 Mass. 371; Nathan v. Woolverton, 149 App. Div. 791, 134 N. Y. Supp. 469; Gurney v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 59 Hun, 625, 14 N. Y. Supp. 321; Blumenthal v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 79 Me. 550, 11 Atl. 605; Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Johnson, 50 Colo. 187, 114 Pac. 650, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 627. See, also, Humphreys v. Perry, 148 U. S. 627, 13 Sup. Ct. 711, 37 L. Ed. 587 (though here there was no allegation or proof of "gross negligence").

DOB.BAILM.—41

The latter rule seems to be sound, for, in the absence of notice to the contrary, the carrier is justified in believing that only technical baggage is offered to him; that only does he accept, and for that only is he paid. This is the rule adopted by the courts of both New York 29 and Massachusetts.30 The passenger's silence in a measure works an imposition on the carrier, and it hardly seems fair, under such circumstances, to impose a bailment responsibility on the carrier as to articles which he did not know that he was receiving. When the passenger affirmatively deceives the carrier, there is, of course, not even a bailment responsibility. Most of the cases, in which these questions arise, involve the transportation of merchandise.

Carrier's Lien on Passenger's Baggage

Reference has already been made to the carrier's lien on the passenger's baggage to secure the payment of fare.32 This lien, however, does not extend to articles in the actual possession of the passenger, or to the clothing that he is wearing.33 Nor can the passenger be detained by the carrier to compel the payment of fare.84

WHAT IS BAGGAGE

197. Baggage, in its technical sense, includes such articles of convenience or necessity, delivered to the carrier for transportation, as are carried by the passenger for his personal use, either during the journey or his stay at his destination, which are also fit and proper for the personal use of persons in the same condition of life as the passenger.

In General

The definition of baggage just given is one, sometimes with unimportant changes of phraseology, in general use. Practically

29 See cases cited in note 28.

30 See cases cited in note 28.

31 The Ionic, 5 Blatchf. 538, Fed. Cas. No. 7,059.

82 Ante, p. 475. See, also, Kressin v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 119 App. Div. 86, 103 N. Y. Supp. 1002; Cantwell v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis, 160 Mo. App. 393, 140 S. W. 966.

33 Ramsden v. Boston & A. R. Co., 104 Mass. 117, 6 Am. Rep. 200; Wolf v. Summers, 2 Camp. (Eng.) 631.

34 Lynch v. Metropolitan El. R. Co., 90 N. Y. 77, 43 Am. Rep. 141. But when a passenger refused to surrender his ticket on leaving a boat, claiming that he had lost it, the carrier may detain the passenger long enough to investigate the circumstances of the case. Standish v. Narragansett S. S. 'Co., 111 Mass. 512, 15 Am. Rep. 66.

35 Other definitions follow: "Such articles of personal convenience or ne