by the conductor and porter, who acted in good faith with no other motive than to preserve the decorum of the car.28

Sec. 1142. (§ 617k.) Duty to awaken passengers in time to alight. When the servants in charge of the sleeping-car have been notified of the passenger's destination, it is their duty to see that the passenger is awakened in time to properly dress and prepare to leave the train.29 "We think," says the court in Texas in one case,30 "that the obligation to awaken and notify the passenger in time for him to prepare to safely and comfortably leave the train at the point of his destination is directly involved in the contract for the use of the sleepingberth." The company was therefore held liable where the conductor and porter, being asleep, neglected to awaken plaintiff and his wife in time to dress properly, and then hurried them out in the dark and wet at a water-tank half a mile from the station.

As relates to negligence in such cases, the sleeping-car and railroad companies are in pari delicto, and either may be held liable, since the agents of the sleeping-car company are the agents of the railroad company.31

Sec. 1143. Duty of sleeping-car company to ventilate and heat cars. It is undoubtedly a fact that sleeping-car companies are bound to warm, heat, and ventilate their cars, but considering the varying predisposition towards heat and cold, and the exacting demands of passengers generally, the exact degree of warmth that is essential cannot be clearly defined,

28. Pullman Car Co. v. Bales (Tex. Civ. App.), 14 S. W. Rep. 855.

29. Airey v. Palace Car Co., 50 La. Ann. 648, 23 So. Rep. 512.

This is especially true as to female passengers who have a right to demand ample time to allow them to clothe themselves in a decent manner before reaching the station. If they are not awakened before reaching the station, the

train should be held a sufficient length of time to enable them to disembark without exposure of their person to the public gaze. McKeon v. Railway Co., 94 Wis. 477, 69 N. W. Rep. 175, 35 L. R. A. 252.

30. Pullman Car Co. v. Smith, 79 Tex. 471, 14 S. W. Rep. 993.

31. Airey v. Palace Car Co., 50 La. Ann. 648, 23 So. Rep. 512.

1342

But in

sleepingas the co

its passer Sec. 11

of getting ing of a but also i

If it fur experienc from whe

obligation does, or And havin ployed to

night tim respond to

Sec. 114 berth he p

berth he

I

in a late c

officials to occupy th

646, 4 C. C 183, 21 L. I

The berth senger by sleeping-car. a particular signed to t become, as to the pas without in

written cor ject-matter, cannot be mony. The the sleeping a berth che

d liable for such injury although its servants were ignorant the woman's condition when they expelled her.36

Sec. 1146. Liability of sleeping-car company for baggage in tody of porter while lady passenger is leaving train.—When ady passenger is about to leave the car after a long journey, 1 has with her a considerable amount of baggage which it uld be burdensome and difficult for her to carry, it is the ty of the porter to assist her by removing such baggage, or much thereof as she cannot conveniently carry, from the .'; and, when any portion or article of such baggage has n taken in charge by the porter, the car company in whose vice such porter is engaged becomes responsible therefor1 if, after it has gone into the custody of such servant, such icle is lost or stolen, the company is bound by every prinle of right and justice to account for its value. Nor is the ter in such case "a mere gratuitous bailee." The performe of this act is, by the clearest implication, included in the ommodations for which the injured party contracted with I paid the master. To say that such an act is but the result a private arrangement between the injured party and such vant, for which nothing has been paid, is radically unnd.37

III. PASSENGER CARRIERS BY WATER.

ec. 1147. (§ 618.) Are subject to general rules regulating er carriers. The general principles which have been stated respect to the rights, duties, obligations and liabilities of iers of passengers apply as well to carriers by water as to iers by land vehicles, and many of the cases which have a cited as establishing these principles, and for the sake llustration, have been the cases of passenger carriers by er.38 But, although the law which regulates the rights

Mann Boudoir Co. v. Dupre, ed. 646, 4 C. C. A. 540, 13 U. pp. 183, 21 L. R. A. 289. Voss v. Wagner Palace Car

Co., 16 Ind. App. 271, 43 N. E. Rep. 20, 44 N. E. Rep. 1010.

38. See various titles under first subdivision of this chapter. As to

and may be a difficult matter for the plaintiff to prove on trial. Still that is a matter of proof, and each case must be dealt with on its own facts. It is not a question that can easily be dealt with by demurrer to a declaration.32

In the more modern cars, the ventilation is usually partly under the control of the occupants of berths. Where that is so, an experienced traveler cannot complain if he neglects to take the usual precautions to open or close the ventilating window, and thereby catches cold.33

Sec. 1144. Duty to keep aisles free from obstructions.-The aisles of the sleeping-car should be kept free from obstructions. Thus, allowing a valise knowingly to stand in the aisle of a dimly lighted sleeping-car where passengers, not knowing the dangerous condition of the passage way, may stumble and fall, is negligence on the part of the company for which it will be liable.34

Sec. 1145. Liability of sleeping-car company for assaults by its servants on passengers or for wrongful expulsion.-A sleeping-car company is bound to provide competent and careful servants, and will be liable for any assaults or violence of its servants not provoked by any wrongful conduct of the passenger.35 In fact, there seems to be no good reason why the sleeping-car company should not be held to the same high degree of accountability for the wrongful and tortious acts of its servants as is exacted of common carriers of passengers and especially of carriers by rail.

So a sleeping-car company will be liable for the proximate results of the wrongful expulsion of a passenger from a berth or its car by its servants. Thus where an unlawful expulsion from the berth of a sleeping-car was the proximate cause of a married woman's miscarriage, the sleeping-car company was

32. Hughes v. Palace Car Co., 74 Fed. 499.

33. Edmunson v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 92 Fed. 824, 34 C. C. A. 382.

34. Levien v. Webb, 61 N. Y. Supp. 1113, 30 Misc. 196.

35. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Lawrence, 74 Miss. 782, 22 So. Rep. 53.

held liable for such injury although its servants were ignorant of the woman's condition when they expelled her.36

Sec. 1146. Liability of sleeping-car company for baggage in custody of porter while lady passenger is leaving train.-When a lady passenger is about to leave the car after a long journey, and has with her a considerable amount of baggage which it would be burdensome and difficult for her to carry, it is the duty of the porter to assist her by removing such baggage, or as much thereof as she cannot conveniently carry, from the car; and, when any portion or article of such baggage has been taken in charge by the porter, the car company in whose service such porter is engaged becomes responsible thereforand if, after it has gone into the custody of such servant, such article is lost or stolen, the company is bound by every principle of right and justice to account for its value. Nor is the porter in such case "a mere gratuitous bailee." The performance of this act is, by the clearest implication, included in the accommodations for which the injured party contracted with and paid the master. To say that such an act is but the result of a private arrangement between the injured party and such servant, for which nothing has been paid, is radically unsound.37

III. PASSENGER CARRIERS BY WATER.

Sec. 1147. (§ 618.) Are subject to general rules regulating other carriers.-The general principles which have been stated in respect to the rights, duties, obligations and liabilities of carriers of passengers apply as well to carriers by water as to carriers by land vehicles, and many of the cases which have been cited as establishing these principles, and for the sake of illustration, have been the cases of passenger carriers by water.38 But, although the law which regulates the rights

36. Mann Boudoir Co. v. Dupre, 54 Fed. 646, C. C. A. 540, 13 U. S. App. 183, 21 L. R. A. 289.

37. Voss v. Wagner Palace Car

Co., 16 Ind. App. 271, 43 N. E. Rep. 20, 44 N. E. Rep. 1010.

38. See various titles under first subdivision of this chapter. As to