porting on its face to be a "free" pass. Such passes are, in fact, not gratuitous, and any stipulation upon them attempting to limit the carrier's liability for its own negligence or that of its agents is void by the great weight of authority. The leading case upon this subject is that of The Railroad v. Lockwood. This was the case of a passenger traveling under what was known as a drover's pass, in which it was agreed, as one of the mutual terms of the arrangement for carrying his cattle, that the plaintiff should take upon himself all the risk of injury to them and of personal injury to himself, and that the acceptance of the pass was to be considered a waiver of all claim for damages for injuries received on the train. Having received personal injury from the negligence of the servants of the company, he brought this suit, which was defended upon the ground that under the terms of this contract the company was released from all liability for negligence. But after an elaborate discussion of the question as to the right of the carrier, either of passengers or of goods, to provide by contract for exemption from liability for the consequences of negligence, in which the question as to each was treated as depending upon the same principle, the conclusion was reached that L. R. (Ire.), 4 C. P. 178; Hall v. The Railway, L. R. 10 Q. B. 437; Gallin v. The Railway, L. R. 10 Q. B. 212; McCawley v. The Railway, L. R. 8 Q. B. 57; Bissell v. The Railroad, 25 N. Y. 442, 29 Barb. 602; Poucher v. The Railroad, 49 N. Y. 263; Meuer v. Railway Co., 5 S. Dak. 568, 59 N. W. Rep. 945, 25 L. R. A. 81, 49 Am. St. Rep. 898 (by statute). 3. Whitney v. Railroad Co., 102 Fed. 850, 43 C. C. A. 19, 50 L. R. A. 615; Carswell v. Railroad Co., 118 Ga. 826, 45 S. E. Rep. 695; Railroad Co. v. Waggoner, 90 Ill. App. 556; Railroad Co. v. Scott's Adm'r, 22 Ky. L. R. 30, 56 S. W. Rep. 674, 108 Ky. 392, 50 L. R. A. 381; Doyle v. Railroad Co., 162 Mass. 66, 37 N. E. Rep. 770, 44 Am. St. Rep. 335, 25 L. R. A. 157; s. c. 166 Mass. 492, 44 N. E. Rep. 611; McNulty v. Railroad Co., 182 Pa. St. 479, 38 Atl. Rep. 524, 61 Am. St. Rep. 721, 38 L. R. A. 376; Chattanooga Rapid Transit Co. v. Venable, 105 Tenn. 460, 58 S. W. Rep. 861, 51 L. R. A. 886; Railway Co. v. Flood, 5 Tex. Ct. Rep. 922, 70 S. W. Rep. 331; Williams v. Railroad Co., 18 Utah, 210, 54 Pac. Rep. 991, 72 Am. St. Rep. 777; Simmons v. Railroad Co., 41 Ore. 151, 69 Pac. Ry. 440, 1022. See also, cases cited in § 1004. 4. 17 Wall. 357. a contract, the object of which was to relieve the carrier, whether of passengers or of goods, from responsibility for the negligence of himself or of his servants, was neither just nor reasonable in law, and that the reasons for this conclusion applied with special force to the case of the carrier of passengers. The contract, therefore, so far as it undertook to affect the liability of the carrier for negligence in the carriage of the passenger, was declared to be totally void, and the defense. was disallowed. Such contracts, however, have been sustained as to persons not passengers but lawfully upon the train, as, for instance, express messengers,5 sleeping car porters, and news agents.7 6 Sec. 1074. (§ 585.) Same subject-No distinction made in these cases as to degree of negligence.-In The Railroad v. Lockwood, and in several of the cases upon this subject, it is said that in cases of the kind no distinction can be made between the degrees of negligence; and any neglect to exercise the reasonable care and diligence which the mode of carriage and the circumstances make necessary for the safety of the 5. Baltimore & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Voigt, 176 U. S. 498, 20 Sup. Ct. R. 385, 44 L. Ed. 560; Railway Co. v. O'Brien, 132 Fed. 593, 67 C. C. A. 421, reversing 116 Fed. 502; Long v. Railroad Co., 130 Fed. 870, 65 C. C. A. 354; Kelly v. Malott, 135 Fed. 74, 67 C. C. A. 548; Blank v. Railroad Co., 182 Ill. 332, 55 N. E. Rep. 332, affirming 80 Ill. App. 475; Railway Co. v. Keefer, 146 Ind. 21, 44 N. E. Rep. 796, 38 L. R. A. 93, 58 Am. St. Rep. 348; Railway Co. v. Mahony, 148 Ind. 196, 46 N. E. Rep. 917; Railroad Co. v. Wallace, 66 Fed. 506, 14 C. C. A. 257, 24 U. S. App. 589, 30 L. R. A. 161; Bates v. Railroad Co., 147 Mass. 255, 17 N. E. Rep. 633; Hosmer v. Railroad Co., 156 Mass. 506, 31 N. E. Rep. 652; Peterson v. Railway Co., 119 Wis. 197, 96 N. W. Rep. 532, 100 Am. St. Rep. 879. 6. Railway Co. v. Hamler, 215 Ill. 525, 74 N. E. Rep. 705; Russell v. Railway Co., 157 Ind. 305, 61 N. E. Rep. 678, 87 Am. St. Rep. 214, 55 L. R. A. 253. Contra, Jones v. Railway Co., 125 Mo. 666, 28 S. W. Rep. 883, 26 L. R. A. 718, 46 Am. St. Rep. 514. 7. Alexander v. Railway Co., 33 Up. Can. 474; Griswold v. Railroad Co., 53 Conn. 371. Contra, Starr v. Railway Co., 67 Minn. 18, 69 N. W. Rep. 632; Railway Co. v. Fenwick (Tex. Civ. App.), 78 S. W. Rep. 548. 8. 17 Wall. 357. passenger will be considered as negligence against responsibility for which it would be unreasonable to permit the carrier to contract. How far the passenger may, by an express contract, dispense with that utmost care and dilgence which are the measure of the carrier's duty to the passenger, or whether he can by the most solemn contract do so to any extent whatever, seems not to be distinctly affirmed. The reasonable conclusion, however, from the language employed in these cases is that such contracts are utterly futile for any purpose or to any extent whatever. Sec. 1075. (§ 586.) Rule where free passes are issued on condition of no liability.-But a difference in the degrees of negligence has been recognized by some courts in cases involving free passes issued on condition of no liability, and such a stipulation against liability is permitted to have effect except when the negligence in the particular instance is not of the kind denominated as gross or wilful. In view of the trend of modern decisions, however, toward abolishing all degrees of negligence those cases cannot be accepted as authoritative in other jurisdictions. Owing to the presence of statutes in some states, their courts have held that it is against public policy to allow a carrier of passengers to contract against liability for damages arising in consequence of his own negligence, even though the passenger is riding on a free pass expressly conditioned against liabil ity.10 But even in such states it is recognized that a person riding on a pass issued contrary to the provisions of a state 9. Rose v. The Railroad, 39 Iowa, 246; Railroad Co. v. Mundy, 21 Ind. 48; Jacobus v. The Railroad, 20 Minn. 110; Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Railway Co., 102 Fed. 17. 10. Railroad Co. v. Grant, 86 Miss. 565, 38 So. Rep. 502; Young r. Railway Co., 93 Mo. App. 267; Railroad Co. v. Hannibal, 2 Neb. (unofficial) 607, 89 N. W. Rep. 643; Railway Co. v. Flood (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 S. W. Rep. 1106; Railway Co. v. Rogers, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 605, 53 S. W. Rep. 366; Railway Co. v. Farmer, 100 Va. 379, 41 S. E. Rep. 721; Bryan r. Railway Co., 32 Mo. App. 228; Railway Co. v. McGown, 65 Tex. 640. statute cannot recover for injuries received through the negligence of the carrier.11 In the great majority of states it is held that when the carrier receives no compensation for the carriage from the passenger, but carries him gratuitously, as upon a free pass, he may lawfully contract with the passenger that the latter will take upon himself all the risk of personal injury from the negligence of the agents or servants of the carrier for which the carrier would otherwise be liable.12 Nor is it material whether the person reads the conditions on the pass or not, for, by accepting it, he will be deemed to have accepted the conditions on which it was issued.13 But such limitations of liability will not ordinarily be binding on an infant where the transportation is procured by a parent, for the agreement is then the agreement of the parent and not of the child.14 And, in all cases, such contracts, to be effectual, must be expressed in unequivocal terms.15 11. McNeill v. Railroad Co., 132 N. Car. 510, 44 S. E. Rep. 34, 95 Am. St. Rep. 641; s. c. 135 N. Car. 682, 47 S. E. Rep. 765. 12. Railway Co. v. Adams, 192 U. S. 440, 48 L. Ed. 513, 24 Sup. Ct. R. 408, reversing 116 Fed. 324, 54 C. C. A. 196; Boering v. Railway Co., 193 U. S. 442, 48 L. Ed. 742, 24 Sup. Ct. R. 515, affirming 20 App. D. C. 500; Duncan v. Railway Co., 113 Fed. 508; The Stella, L. R. (1900) P. 161, 81 Law T. (N. S.) 235, 69 L. J. P. 70; Railway Co. v. Franchere (Can.), 35 S. C. R. 68; Holly v. Railway Co., 119 Ga. 767, 47 S. E. Rep. 188; Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. Read, 37 Ill. 484; Payne v. Railroad Co., 157 Ind. 616, 62 N. E. Rep. 472, vacating judgment of Ind. App. in 60 N. E. Rep. 362; Rogers v. Steamboat Co., 86 Me. 261, 29 Atl. Rep. 1069, 25 L. R. A. 491; Quim by v. Railroad Co., 150 Mass. 365; Kinney v. Railroad Co., 32 N. J. Law 407; Wells v. The Railroad Co., 26 Barb. 611, 24 N. Y. 181; Perkins v. The Railroad, 24 N. Y. 196; Muldoon v. Railway Co., 10 Wash. 311, 38 Pac. Rep. 995, 22 L. R. A. 794, 45 Am. St. Rep. 995; s. c. 7 Wash. 528, 35 Pac. Rep. 442, 38 Am. St. Rep. 901. One who has a free pass does not become a passenger for hire by purchasing a ticket for a seat in a drawing-room car. Ulrich v. Railroad Co., 108 N. Y. 80. 13. Quimby v. Railroad Co., supra; Boering v. Railroad Co., supra. 14. Railway Co. v. Lee, 92 Fed. 318, 34 C. C. A. 365; s. c. 76 Fed. 212, 22 C. C. A. 132, 40 U. S. App. 298; Flower v. Railway Co., (1894) 2 Q. B. 65, 63 L. J. Q. B. 547. 15. Kenney v. Railroad Co., 125 Sec. 1076. Carrier may enter into contract of indemnity with insurance company.-While the carrier of passengers cannot, by contract, restrict, diminish or limit its obligation to the public or that duty to the passenger which requires the exercise of the highest degree of care and skill, there is no reason of public policy which prohibits him from entering into a contract of indemnity against damages for injuries caused to passengers, and such a contract is not invalid though covering losses resulting from its own negligence or the negligence of its servants. Such insurance does not diminish the carrier's own responsibility, but rather increases the means of meeting that responsibility to the person injured.16 15. Regulations of the carrier. Sec. 1077. (§ 587.) The passenger must conform to the reasonable regulations of the carrier, and may be ejected for refusal. The passenger takes his ticket always with the understanding that he will conform to the reasonable regulations of the carrier as to the conduct of the carriage; and it has been held that an obedience to such regulations is a condition of the contract to carry, though not expressed in the contract or known to the passenger;17 and for a persistent refusal to com N. Y. 422; Dow v. Railway Co., 80 N. Y. Supp. 941, 81 App. Div. 362. 16. Baltimore, etc., Railroad v. Mercantile Trust & Deposit Co., 82 Md. 535, 34 Atl. Rep. 778, 38 L. R. A. 97; Railroad Co. v. Southern Ry. News Co., 151 Mo. 373, 52 S. W. Rep. 205, 45 L. R. A. 380. 17. Railway Co. v. Watson, 110 Ga. 681, 36 S. E. Rep. 209, citing Hutch. on Carr.; Railway Co. v. Rielly, 40 Ill. App. 416; State v. Railway Co., 84 Md. 163, 34 Atl. Rep. 1130; Decker v. Railroad Co., 3 Okl. 553, 41 Pac. Rep. 610; Penn. Co. v. Parry, 55 N. J. Law 551, 27 Atl. Rep. 914, 22 L. R. A. 251, Regulations that passengers shall use only one seat if the car is not crowded, or half a seat if crowded, or that the backs of seats shall not be turned so as to face each other, or that passengers shall not place baggage on the seats in front of them are reasonable. Railway Co. v. Moody (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. Rep. 574. A rule that baggage shall not be checked until a ticket has been procured is a reasonable regula |