CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS-Continued.
In action for assault by persons in employ of defendant street
railway company, evidence that the persons committing the
assault were appointed special deputies by the sheriff at re-
quest of the railway was material only in so far as it tended
to show their employment by the company. Rand v. Butte
Elec. Ry. Co. (Mont.), 480.
Question for jury whether persons assaulting passenger were
acting as public officers or as officers of street railway com-
pany. Rand v. Butte Elec. Ry. Co. (Mont.), 480.
Where a railroad employee is made a special police officer, the
railroad is liable for his acts during the course of his duty, even
though they are done in excess of his authority. Rand v. Butte
Elec. Ry. Co. (Mont.), 480.
Assumption of risk of injury from obvious character of appliances
has no application between carrier and passenger, rule of. Bates
v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. (Wis.), 173.
Negligence of carrier in running train past station, where pas-
senger had just alighted, at high speed, concurred with negli-
gence of servants of express company in striking the passenger
with an express truck as a proximate cause of passenger's death,
rendering railroad liable. St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Shaw
(Ark.), 451.
Alighting from moving train is not negligence per se. Chesa-
peake & O. R. Co. v. Robinson (Ky.), 205.
Attempting to board street car without paying any attention_to
the signals to start the car. Ryan v. Pittsfield Elec. St. Ry.
Co. (Mass.), 446,
Care required of passenger where carrier is negligent in failing
to announce station or to have its depot platform lighted.
Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Robinson (Ky.), 205.
Getting on or off moving train. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Irvin
(Kan.), 187.
Is question for jury where passenger at station is struck by
locomotive of the train he intends to take while crossing the
intervening track to take such train. Struble v. Pennsylvania
Co. (Pa.), 217.
Intoxicated passenger ejected from train to exercise due care
for his own safety, at dangerous place, duty of. St. Louis,
etc., Ry. Co. v. Dallas (Ark.), 167.
Leaving seat in car when danger of collision was imminent.
South, etc., Ry. Co. v. Crutcher (Ky.), 199.
Passenger injured while boarding street car by placing his hand
on the door, which had not been fully opened. Carter v. Bos-
ton & N. St. Ry. Co. (Mass.), 697.
Passenger injured while voluntarily alighting at, and attempting
to step across, hole in street. Johns v. Georgia, etc., Co. (Ga.),
Passenger using baggage compartment of combination car as a
smoking room by implied invitation of carrier. Davis v. Iowa
Cent. Ry. Co. (Iowa), 710.
Passing from one car to another of moving train in obedience to
order of conductor. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Carleton
(Ala.), 511.
Question for jury whether passenger exercised reasonable care
in alighting from train. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Robinson
(Ky.), 205.
Right of passenger awaiting his train at a station to assume
that carrier will exercise strictest vigilence to protect him
CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS-Continued.
from injury, either by train he intends to take, or one passing
through station before it arrives. Struble v. Pennsylvania Co.
(Pa.), 217.
Right of street car passenger carried by his station and directed
to alight in a dark, strange place to assume that such place
is safe, in absence of directions how to reach his destination.
Cossitt v. St. Louis, etc., Co. (Mo.), 501.
Street car passenger discharged at dark, strange place between
stations, who is ignorant of the fact that he has been carried
by his station, must use ordinary care for his safety in pro-
ceeding to his destination, but is not required to walk on the
railroad right of way to the next station. Cossitt v. St. Louis,
etc., Co. (Mo.), 501.
Stop, look, and listen rule is not to be rigorously applied to pas-
sengers at stations going to or from trains. Struble v. Penn-
sylvania Co. (Pa.), 217.
Woman on crutches, with intention of becoming a passenger on
street car, getting on step leading to the rear vestibule from.
the left hand side, in violation of, but in ignorance of carrier's
rule. Yancy v. Boston Elev. Ry. Co. (Mass.), 705.
No notice of extra travel which would require more than the
usual trains, right of carrier to show that it had. Chesapeake.
& O. Ry. Co. v. Austin (Ky.), 716.
Assaulting passengers, $2,500 was not excessive for injuries in-
flicted by. Rand v. Butte Elec. Ry. Co. (Mont.), 480.
Duty to minimize the damages sustained through failure of
flagged train to stop at flag station. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v.
Poston (Ky.), 497.
Exemplary damages may be recovered against carrier for in-
juries to passenger from assault by conductor. Amann v. Chi-
cago Consol. Traction Co. (Ill.), 141.
Mental suffering by passenger, right to recover for. Caldwell v.
Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (Wash.), 161.
Mitigation of alleged wrong, whether resulting damages are al-
lowed as compensation or by way of punishment, act of car-
rier's servant may be shown in. Caldwell v. Northern Pac.
Ry. Co. (Wash.), 161.
Ordinary prudence did not require female passenger negligently
left at flag station to spend the night in a house occupied only
by a single man. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Poston (Ky.), 497.
Passenger must exercise ordinary care to minimize the damages
occasioned by failure of carrier to furnish reasonable accom-
modations or failure to stop train at station a reasonable time
to enable passenger to board the train. Chesapeake & O. Ry.
Co. v. Austin (Ky.), 716.
Punitive damage for failure to stop train at flag station to take
up passenger, where engineer, by exercise of ordinary care,
could have seen signal to stop. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Gar-
ner (Miss.), 185.
Punitive damages were authorized by gross negligence in operat-
ing street car on steep incline with useless brake, and relying
entirely on reverse electric current to control car. Lexington
Ry. Co. v. Johnson (Ky.), 181.
Though invalid female passenger was entitled to ride in pas-
senger car, instead of in the mail and express car, and was
entitled to compensatory damages, verdict of $1,000 indicated
passion and prejudice on part of jury. Caldwell v. Northern
Pac. Ry. Co. (Wash.), 161.
CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS-Continued.
$1,000, as punitive damages, was not excessive where collision
was caused by knowingly operating electric car on steep in-
cline with useless brake. Lexington Ry. Co. v. Johnson (Ky.),
Baggage room reasonably safe, duty of carrier to keep. Bates
v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. (Wis.), 173.
Due intoxicated passenger using track as foot-path after alight-
ing from his train. Pinson v. Southern Ry. (S. Car.), 700.
Mail clerks, care due. Barker v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. (Ill.), 470.
Mere facts that passenger, in passing from one car to another,
fell and was injured, and that the platform of one car was
higher than the other by three or four inches, do not render
the railroad liable. Wigg v. Erie R. Co. (C. C. A.), 449.
Rule that requires exercise of utmost care and vigilance to guard
against accidents extends to every case in which a carrier re-
ceives and agrees to transport another not in its employment.
Barker v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. (Ill.), 470.
Announcement of station, carrier need not insure that passenger
hears. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Robinson (Ky.), 205.
Duty to stop trains reasonable time at stations. Chesapeake &
O. R. Co. v. Robinson (Ky.), 205.
Liability for injury to passenger caused by starting of car while
passenger was alighting depended upon whether he had been
allowed reasonable time to alight after announcement of sta-
tion. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Robinson (Ky.), 205.
Evidence was sufficient to support verdict for plaintiff, in ac-
tion for injuries to intoxicated passenger by being run over
by another train after he was ejected from defendant's train.
St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Dallas (Ark.), 167.
Force than was necessary in ejecting person from its premises,
railroad is liable where parties acting either as special offi-
cers or employees of street railway use more. Rand v. Butte
Elec. Ry. Co. (Mont.), 480.
Intoxicated passenger is ejected at dangerous place, liability of
carrier where. St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Dallas (Ark.), 167.
Sufficiency of complaint in action for death of passenger alleged
to have resulted from his attempt to comply with conductor's
order to go into another car of moving train. Central of Geor-
gia Ry. Co. v. Carleton (Ala.), 511.
In action for indignities suffered by passenger at hands of con-
ductor, evidence of occurrences between the conductor and
other passengers, not overheard by the passenger, was inad-
missible. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Austin (Ky.), 716.
Carrier was responsible for gross negligence of conductor in
starting street car with crippled person standing on step out-
side of locked door of rear vestibule of car. Yancy v. Boston
Elev. Ry. Co. (Mass.), 705.
Carrier owed special duty to female passenger to protect her
from insult was not prejudicial, instruction that. Caldwell v.
Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (Wash.), 161.
CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS-Continued.
Servant's conduct, as well as the humiliation suffered by pas-
senger, should be considered as matter in aggravation, rather
than as basis of right of action. Caldwell v. Northern Pac.
Ry. Co. (Wash.), 161.
"This is the place for such as you," question for jury whether
conductor intended to insult invalid female passenger, when
he directed that she be placed in mail and express car, in say-
ing. Caldwell v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (Wash.), 161.
Intoxicated Passengers.
Fact that passenger is intoxicated does not furnish any excuse
for conductor to force him from a place of safety in the train
to one where it will require extraordinary care to avoid injury.
Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Carleton (Ala.), 511.
It is not within scope of employment of a railroad employee who
is not a member of the crew of the passenger train to guard
an intoxicated passenger against injury from trains after the
latter has alighted from his train, nor is the railroad liable for
his neglect to do so. Pinson v. Southern Ry. (S. Car.), 700.
Rule as to care required of carrier for protection of intoxicated
passenger does not apply unless carrier's agents were charge-
able with notice of his condition. Pinson v. Southern Ry. (S.
Car.), 700.
When the intoxication of a passenger is apparent to conductor it
calls for extra precautions on his part for the safety of the pas-
senger. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Carleton (Ala.), 511.
Emergency application of brakes, sufficiency of evidence of negli-
gence in making. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. James (Kan.), 195.
Negligence for conductor to cause passenger to go upon car plat-
form when sudden stopping of train is to be expected. Chicago,
etc., Ry. Co. v. James (Kan.), 195.
Negligence was question for jury where passenger was injured by
sudden starting of electric car, while alighting, with others who
were frightened by flashes of electricity caused by carelessness
or inexperience of motorman. Pensacola Elec. Co. v. Alexander
(Fla.), 193.
Carrier is not liable for injury to passenger merely because train-
men with lanterns do not remain on unlighted platform after
train has started. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Robinson (Ky.),
205.
Negligence of conductor in calling out in loud voice and excited
manner within hearing of passengers that train or car was on fire,
causing passenger to run to rear platform, from which sudden
stopping of train caused him to fall, sufficiency of evidence of.
Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. James (Kan.), 195.
Presumption of Negligence.
Collision causing death of passenger. Curtis v. Southern Ry. Co.
(N. Car.), 192.
Passenger injured by reason of operation of electric car. Pensa-
cola Elec. Co. v. Alexander (Fla.), 193.
Proof that passenger was injured through an instrumentality of
carrier raises a presumption of negligence which continues
through the trial. Williford v. Southern Ry. Co. (S. Car.), 693.
Protection of Passengers from Strangers.
Carrier owes to passengers, and others, lawfully using its station
platform the duty to protect them from dangerous habits of the
CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS-Continued.
servants of an express company in negligently moving trucks
about platform. St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Shaw (Ark.), 451.
Proximate Cause.
Act of carrying passenger by his station, and directing him to
alight in a dark and strange place near a dangerous culvert
crossing right of way and under the belief that he was near
station platform, was proximate cause of his subsequent falling
into the culvert from the end of the platform over it, mistaken
for station platform, in his effort to reach his destination. Cos-
sitt v. St. Louis, etc., Co. (Mo.), 501.
Duty to stop train a reasonable time for passengers to have time
to board it. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Austin (Ky.), 716.
Engineer's failure to stop train at flag station merely on signal of
prospective passenger is not negligence. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.
v. Garner (Miss.), 185.
Negligence of conductor in giving signal for starting street car
without going where he can see whether any one is boarding is
question for jury, though the car has made a reasonably long
stop. Ryan v. Pittsfield Elec. St. Ry. Co. (Mass.), 446.
Where train stopped the reasonable and usual length of time for
passengers to board it, and a passenger failed to present himself
at the train, he cannot recover for being left at the station,
though he failed to present himself by reason of the crowd at
the station. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Austin (Ky.), 716.
Refusal to Transport.
If street car company waived its rule prohibiting passengers from
bringing large and unwieldy articles into car by permitting a
passenger to bring a graphophone horn into the car with him, it
will be liable to punitive damages for afterwards refusing to al-
low plaintiff to become a passenger with a graphophone horn.
Vlasservitch v. Augusta & A. Ry. Co. (S. Car.), 721.
Waiver of rule prohibiting passengers from bringing large and un-
wieldy articles into street cars. Vlasservitch v. Augusta. & A.
Ry. Co. (S. Car.), 721.
Seats, duty of carrier to furnish. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Aus-
tin (Ky.), 716.
Separation of Colored Passengers.
Burden of proof was on plaintiff to establish that his children be-
longed to white race; and, under the statute in question, any
person, who has any applicable mixture of negro blood belong
to the "colored race." Lee v. New Orleans G. R. R. Co. (La.),
Conductor is not justified in ordering or compelling white pas-
sengers in negro coach to go into another coach while train is
moving at dangerous rate of speed. Central of Georgia Ry. Co.
v. Carleton (Ala.), 511.
Under statute requiring white and colored passengers to be car-
ried separately, carrier is guilty of an actionable wrong in re-
quiring white person to ride in colored coach. Chesapeake & O.
Ry. Co. v. Austin (Ky.), 716.
Where a white passenger was not directed to ride in the colored
coach, and remained on the train knowing its crowded condition,
he cannot complain because the only seat he could get was in
the colored coach. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Austin (Ky.),
|