31 This intoxication is in violation of a statute.30 32 33 duty of the carrier to remove him and leave him until he is in a fit condition to resume his journey, or until he shall obtain the assistance necessary to take care of him to the end of his journey. 35 36 [1332] C. Acts of Fellow Passengers or Other Third Persons-1. Protection against Injuries from Fellow Passengers-a. General Rule. While a common carrier is not an insurer of its passengers' safety, and is perhaps not bound to protect its passengers from injuries by third persons to the same extent and degree as from like injuries by its own agents or employees,37 yet it is the duty of its employees to exercise great care and vigilance in preserving order and in guarding passengers from annoyance, violence, or insult threatened by fellow passengers; 38 and where the carrier, through its agents or employees, knows, or has opportunity to know, of a threatened injury by a fellow passenger, or might reasonably anticipate the happening of such an injury, and fails or neglects to take the proper precautions or to use proper means to prevent or mitigate such injury, it is liable thereSmith, (Miss.) 64 S 158, 49 LRANS 33. Central of Georgia R. Co. v. [1331] b. Passenger Taken Sick during Transit. Where a passenger becomes ill or unconscious during transit, and such fact is known to the employees of the carrier, or it is so apparent that they are charged with knowledge of it, it is their duty to give him such care and protection, beyond that demanded under ordinary circumstances, as is reasonably practicable with the facilities at hand and consistent with the safe and proper conduct of the business, and the safety and comfort of the other passengers." 34 Where an unattended passenger, after starting on a journey, becomes sick, and unconscious or insane, it is the under the influence of liquor as to be helpless or irresponsible or incapable of protecting himself from accident, and his condition is or could be known by the trainmen in the exercise of reasonable care the plainest dictates of humanity demand that he should not be permitted to remain or place himself in unnecessary peril if the persons in charge of the train by the exercise of reasonable care can prevent it." Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Gregory, 141 Ky. 747, 764, 133 SW 805, 35 LRANS 317. [a] Extra precaution. The fact that a passenger has by intoxication voluntarily deprived himself of the ability to exercise ordinary care does not furnish any excuse for the conductor to force him from a place of safety in the train to one where it will require extraordinary care to avoid injury, and when the intoxication is apparent to the conductor it calls for extra precaution on his part. Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Carleton, 163 Ala. 62, 51 S 27. [b] Refusal to receive intoxicated person.-The fact that a carrier might have refused to receive as a passenger an intoxicated person because he was noisy and boisterous could not be considered in determining the liability of the carrier for the death of such person caused by his falling, or being thrown, from the train. Paris, etc., R. Co. Robinson, 53 Tex. Civ. A. 42, 114 SW 658. V. [c] Where a passenger is riding on the platform of the car in such a state of intoxication as to be careless of the danger to which he is exposed, it is the duty of the company, after the conductor has notice of his condition and exposure to danger, to use the ordinary precautions for his safety, such as calling his attention to the danger and to the rules of the company forbidding such exposure and inviting him to go inside the car. Fisher v. West Virginia, etc., R. Co.. 39 W. Va. 366, 19 SE 578, 23 LRA 758. [d] Guarding intoxicated passenger. There is no duty on a carrier to place a guard over an intoxicated passenger to prevent him from injuring himself or from putting himself in a place of danger. Dabney v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 140 Ill. A. 269. [e] Where an intoxicated passenger falls off a train, and his absence is not noticed until the train has traveled several miles, it is not negligence to refuse to back the train, if it appears that other trains are notified to watch for him, and that to back the train would endanger all board. Yazoo, etc.. R. Co. V. on 917. Duty to receive intoxicated person as a passenger see supra § 1064. 30. Wheeler v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 70 N. H. 607, 50 A 103, 54 LRA 955. 31. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. V. Gregory, 141 Ky. 747, 133 SW 805, 35 LRANS 317; Wheeler v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 70 N. H. 607, 50 A 103, 54 LRA 955; Pinson v. Southern R. Co., 85 S. C. 355, 67 SE 464. See also cases supra note 29. "Trainmen are not obliged to anticipate that a passenger who is under the influence of liquor will unnecessarily expose himself to danger, nor are they under any duty to exercise more than ordinary care to discover whether passengers are drunk or sober. It is only when their attention is directed either by personal observation or information to the helpless, irresponsible or incapable condition of a passenger or when by the exercise of ordinary care his condition could be discovered that they are under a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect him." Louisville, etc., R. Co. Gregory, 141 Ky. 747, 765, 133 SW 805, 35 LRANS 317. V. [a] Imputed knowledge.-That an employee of a railroad company, who was not a member of the crew of the passenger train from which decedent got off, and was not then on duty, and did not know that decedent got off the train, saw him walking on the company's tracks in a drunken condition would not make the company liable for running over decedent. Pinson v. Southern R. Co., 85 S. C. 355, 67 SE 464. 32. Ill-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Mich.-Strand v. Chicago, etc., R. Minn.-Parker v. Winoma, etc., R. N. Y.-English v. New York Cent.. Tex.-Paris, etc., R. Co. v. Robin- Wash. Welsh v. Spokane, etc., R. [a] Intoxication not apparent.- Madden, 135 Ga. 205, 69 SE 165, 31 LRANS 813 and note, 21 AnnCas 1077 and note. 34. Ga.-Central of Georgia R. Co., 135 Ga. 205, 69 SE 165, 31 LRA NS 813, 21 AnnCas 1077. Kan. Atchison, etc.. R. Co. v. Parry, 67 Kan. 515, 73 P 105. Ky-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Allen, 121 Ky. 138, 89 SW 150, 28 KyL 108, 11 AnnCas 970. City R. La.-Conolly v. Cresent Co., 41 La. Ann. 57, 5 S 259, 6 S 526, 17 AmSR 389, 3 LRA 133. N. J.-Newark, etc., R. Co. v. McCann, 58 N. J. L. 642, 34 A 1052, 33 LRA 127. N. Y.-Middleton v. Whitridge, 213 N. Y. 499, 108 NE 192, AnnCas1916C 856 and note [rev 156 App. Div. 154, 141 NYS 104]; Smith v. British, etc., Steam Packet Co., 86 N. Y. 408. Oh.-Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Salzman, 52 Oh. St. 558, 40 NE 891, 49 AmSR 745, 31 LRA 261 and note. Tex.-St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Adams, (Civ. A.) 163 SW 1029; Adams v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., (Civ. A.) 137 SW 437. [a] Negligence of physician.-Although it may be the duty of the carrier's employees under such circumstances to call a physician to attend the passenger, the carrier is not liable for the negligence of such physician, or for his malpractice, if reasonable care has been exercised in selecting a competent physician. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Scott, 18 Tex. Civ. A. 321, 44 SW 589. See also supra § 1308. 35. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Woodruff, 89 Ark. 9, 115 SW 953; Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Weber, 33 Kan. 543, 6 P 877, 52 AmR 543; Middletown v. Whitridge, 213 N. Y. 499, 108 NE 192, AnnCas1916C 856. 36. See supra § 1302. 37. Irwin V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 161 Ala. 489, 50 S 62, 135 AmSR 153, 18 AnnCas 772 and note; Simmons v. New Bedford, etc., Steamboat Co., 97 Mass. 361, 93 AmD 99; Buck v. Manhattan R. Co., 15 Daly 550 [aff 134 N. Y. 589 mem. 31 NE 628 mem]. [a] Degree of care.-Carriers are only held to reasonable care in preventing injuries by one passenger on another, and not to the utmost care which is required in the construction of the road and the management of its trains. Buck v. Manhattan, R. Co., 15 Daly 550 [aff 134 N. Y. 589 mem. 31 NE 628 mem]. 38. U. S.-Flint v. Norwich, etc., Transp. Co., 9 F. Cas. No. 4,873, 34 Conn. 554. Ala.-Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Mobley, 69 S 614, 618 [quot Cyc]; for.39 This duty may involve the coöperation of the employees of the carrier and the invoking of the assistance of other passengers in removing a disorderly passenger from the train.40 Limitations of rule. The liability of the carrier in such cases arises not alone from the fact that the passenger has been injured, but from the failure of its agents or servants to afford him proper protection; and hence unless such agents or servants know or ought to know that danger from Alabama City, etc., R. Co. v. Samp- | Holly v. Atlanta St. R. Co., 61 Ga. Colo.-Farrier v. Colorado Springs, etc., R. Co., 42 Colo. 331, 95 P 294, 126 AmSR 158. Ga.-Grimsley v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 1 Ga. A. 557, 57 SE 943. Iowa. Adams v. Chicago Great Western R. Co., 156 Iowa 31, 135 NW 21. 42 LRANS 373. Ky.-Louisville R. Co. V. Dott. 161 Ky. 759, 171 SW 438, LRA1915C 681; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Gunterman, 135 Ky. 438, 122 SW 514; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Winslow, 119 Ky. 877, 84 SW 1175, 27 KyL 329. Mass.-Seale v. Boston El. R. Co., 214 Mass. 59, 100 NE 1020; Coy v. Boston El. R. Co., 212 Mass. 307, 98 NE 1041; Hull v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 210 Mass. 159, 96 NE 58, 36 LRANS 406, AnnCas1912C 1147; Glennen V. Boston El. R. Co., 207 Mass. 497, 93 NE 700, 32 LRANS 470. Miss.-New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Burke, 53 Miss. 200, 24 AmR 689. Mo.-Farber v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 116 Mo. 81, 22 SW 631, 20 LRA 350. Nebr. Sorenson v. Lincoln Tract. Co., 94 Nebr. 91, 142 NW 702. N. Y.-Putnam v. Broadway, etc., R. Co., 55 N. Y. 108, 14 AmR 190; McMahon V. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 59 Misc. 242, 110 NYS 876. S. C.-Franklin v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 74 S. C. 332, 359, 54 SE 578 [cit Cyc]. V. Tenn.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. Hatch, 116 Tenn. 580, 94 SW 671. Tex.-Dillingham V. Russell, 73 Tex. 47, 11 SW 139, 15 AmSR 753, 3 LRA 634 and note. Va. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. Birchfield, 105 Va. 809, 54 SE 879. V. [a] Utmost vigilance and care."The defendants were bound to exercise the utmost vigilance and care in maintaining order and guarding the passengers against violence from whatever source arising, which might reasonably be anticipated or naturally be expected to occur in view of all the circumstances, and of the number and character of the persons on board." Flint V. Norwich, etc., Transp. Co., 9 F. Cas. No. 4,873, 34 Conn. 554, 557. [b] High degree of care.-"Railway companies are under obligations to protect their passengers from the violence of fellow-passengers as far as it can be done by the exercise of a high degree of care. Dillingham v. Russell, 73 Tex. 47, 11 SW 139, 15 AmSR 753, 3 LRA 634." International, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 9 Tex. Civ. A. 104, 106, 28 SW 233. 39. U. S.-Meyer V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 54 Fed. 116, 4 CCA 221 [aff 77 Fed. 150]; Murphy v. Western, etc., R. Co., 23 Fed. 637; King v. Ohio, etc., R. Co., 22 Fed. 413; Flint v. Norwich, etc., Transp. Co., 9 F. Cas. No. 4,873, 6 Blatchf. 158, 2 AmLRev 569, 34 Conn. 554. Ala.-Gooch V. Birmingham etc., Co., 177 Ala. 293, 58 S Montgomery Tract. Co. v. Whatley, 44 S 538. R., 196; V. Ark. Texarkana, etc., R. Co. Anderson, 67 Ark. 123, 53 SW 673. Colo.-Farrier v. Colorado Springs, etc., R. Co., 42 Colo. 331, 95 P 294, 126 AmSR 158. D. C.-Flannery v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 15 D. C. 111. Ga. Savannah, etc.. R. Co. V. Boyle, 115 Ga. 836, 42 SE 242, 59 LRA 104; Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Jefferson. 89 Ga. 554, 16 SE 69, 32 AmSR 87 and note, 17 LRA 571; Ind.-Evansville, etc., R. Co. V. Darting, 6 Ind. A. 375, 33 NE 636. Kan.-Spangler v. St. Joseph, etc., R. Co., 68 Kan. 46, 74 P 607, 104 AmSR 391, 63 LRA 634. Ky.-Quinn v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 98 Ky. 231, 32 SW 742, 17 KyL 811; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Finn, 16 KyL 57. Md.-United R., etc., Co. v. State, 93 Md. 619. 49 A 923, 86 AmSR 453; Tall v. Baltimore Steam-Packet Co.. 90 Md. 248, 44 A 1007, 47 LRA 120. Mass.-Cobb v. Boston El. R. Co., 179 Mass. 212. 60 NE 476; Simmons V. New Bedford, etc., Steamboat Co., 97 Mass. 361, 93 AmD 99. Mich.-McWilliams v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 146 Mich. 216, 109 NW 272. Minn.-Lucy V. Chicago Great Western R. Co., 64 Minn. 7, 65 NW 944, 31 LRA 551. Miss.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. Minor, 69 Miss. 710, 11 S 101, 16 LRA 627 and note; New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Burke, 53 Miss. 200, 24 AmR 689. Mo.-Spohn v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 101 Mo. 417, 14 SW 880, 87 Mo. 74. N. J.-Partridge V. Woodland Steamboat Co., 66 N. J. L. 290, 49 A 726. N. Y. Koch v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 75 App. Div. 282, 78 NYS 99; Hendricks v. Sixth Ave. R. Co., 44 N. Y. Super. 8. Pa.-Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Pillow, 76 Pa. 510, 18 AmR 424; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Hinds, 53 Pa. 512, 91 AmD 224. S. C.-Spires V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 92 S. C. 564, 75 SE 950. Tenn.-West Memphis Packet Co. v. White, 99 Tenn. 256, 41 SW 583, 38 LRA 427. Tex. Twichell v. Pecos, etc., R. Co., 62 Tex. Civ. A. 175, 131 SW 243; International, etc., R. Co. V. Miller, 9 Tex. Civ. A. 104, 28 SW 233. Va.-Virginia R., etc., Co. v. McDemmick, 117 Va. 862, 86 SE 744. Wash.-Westcott v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 41 Wash. 618, 84 P 588, 111 AmSR 1038, 4 LRANS 947. Wis.-Kline v. Milwaukee Electric R., etc., Co., 146 Wis. 134, 131 NW 427, AnnCas1912C 276. Eng.-Cobb v. Great Western R. Co., [1894] A. C. 419. Pac. R. Ont.-Blain V. Canadian "Although common carriers are not insurers of the safety of their passengers, they are in duty bound to protect them from the unprovoked assault or misconduct of a fellow passenger, where the servants of the carrier have knowledge of the existing conditions for a sufficient intervening time between the acquisition of knowledge and the injury to protect their passengers; and this is true where the carrier's servants have reason to anticipate from the existing conditions that the safety of the passengers is imperiled by the misconduct of a fellow passenger." Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Fisher, (Ind.) 110 NE 240, 241. tection from injuries or outrages at the hands of strangers or of fellow passengers, if by the use of reasonable foresight such injuries could have been anticipated and averted." Sherley v. Billings, 8 Bush (Ky.) 147, 152, 8 AmR 451 [foll Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. McEwan, 31 SW 465, 17 KyL 406]. [c] Continuance of liability.-It is the duty of the railroad company to exercise the strictest diligence to protect passengers from misconduct and assaults of fellow passengers, not only while such passengers remain on the train, but after they have alighted at their destination, whenever the company could have anticipated that the threatened injury would occur. Spangler v. St. Joseph, etc., R. Co., 68 Kan. 46. 71 P 607. 104 AmSR 391. 63 LRA 634. [d] Fear of violence.-A passenger may be allowed to recover for injuries sustained by jumping from a train while in motion, because of the threats of fellow passengers to beat and rob him, although these threats were made in jest, where defendant's conductor knew that the passenger thought that they were seriously meant, and instead of attempting to quiet the fears of such passenger, he himself joined in the joke. Spohn V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 101 Mo. 417, 14 SW 880. [e] Injury from dog in car.-A carrier is liable for damages to the clothing and sensibilities of a pasin a senger street car by a dog brought in by another passenger and allowed to remain there. Westcott v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 41 Wash. 618, 84 P 588, 111 AmSR 1038, 4 LRANS 947 and note. [f] Leasing its cars for an excursion does not relieve the railroad company from liability for a failure to protect a passenger from the misconduct of fellow passengers. Texarkana, etc., R. Co. v. Anderson, 67 Ark. 123, 53 SW 673. 40. Thayer v. Old Colony St. R. Co., 214 Mass. 234, 101 NE 368, 44 LRANS 1125, AnnCas1914B 865; State v. Blunt, 110 Mo. 322, 19 SW 650; McMahon v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 59 Misc. 242, 110 NYS 876. [a] Benefit of right to eject.A passenger is entitled to the benefit of the carrier's right to exclude or expel persons who, from intoxication or the use of improper language, may cause annoyance. Thayer V. Old Colony St. R. Co., 214 Mass., 234, 101 NE 368, 44 LRANS 1125, Ann Cas1914B 865. Ejection of disorderly passenger see supra §§ 1165, 1166. 41. New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Burke, 53 Miss. 200, 24 AmR 689; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Hinds, 53 Pa. 512, 91 AmD 224; Barlick v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 41 Pa. Super. 87; Connell v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 93 Va. 44, 24 SE 467, 57 AmSR 786, 32 LRA 792. [a] Ground of liability.-(1) "It is first to be observed that the liability of the carrier arises, not from the fact that the passenger has been injured, but from the failure of the officials to afford protection. It will be necessary, therefore, in each case to bring home to the conductor knowledge or opportunity to know that the injury was threatened, and to show that by his prompt intervention he could have prevented or mitigated it. It must be remembered, also, that the power at his disposal consists of the train hands and the willing passengers; that he can never be expected to accomplish anything more than is possible with [b] Reasonable foresight.-A pas- this force; and that all that can be senger has "the right to expect pro-required of him, at last, is a fair [a] The law implies a contract on the part of a carrier of passengers for the protection of the party carried from the insults and wanton interference of strangers, fellow passengers, and the carrier and its employees; and for any violation of the implied contract, by force or negligence, the carrier is liable in an action of contract or tort. Winnegar v. Central Pass. R. Co., 85 Ky. 547. 4 SW 237, 9 KyL 156. fellow passengers exists or is reasonably to be ap- and honest effort to prevent the wrong." New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Burke, 53 Miss. 200, 225, 24 AmR 689 [foll Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. Minor, 69 Miss. 710, 11 S 101, 16 LRA 627; Royston v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 67 Miss. 376, 7 S 320]. (2) "There is no such privity between the company and the disorderly passenger as to make them liable on the principle of respondeat superior. The only ground on which they can be charged is a violation of the contract they made with the injured party. They undertook to carry the plaintiff safely, and so negligently performed this contract that she was injured. This is the ground of her action-it can rest upon no other. The negligence of the company, or of their officers in charge of the train, is the gist of the action, and So it is laid in the declaration." Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Hinds, 53 Pa. 512, 515, 91 AmD 224. 42. U. S.-Brown v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 139 Fed. 972, 72 CCA 20, 2 LRANS 105. 3 AnnCas 251. Ind.-Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. Arnold, 26 Ind. A. 190, 59 NE 394. Kan.-Leavenworth Electric R. Co. v. Cusick, 60 Kan. 590, 57 P 519, 72 AmSR 374. Ky.-Beiser v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 152 Ky. 522, 153 SW 742, 43 LRA NS 1050; Bogard v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 144 Ky. 649, 139 SW 855, 36 LRA NS 337; Adams v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 134 Ky. 620, 121 SW 419, 135 AmSR 425. 21 AnnCas 321. Mass.-Nute V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 214 Mass. 184, 100 NE 1099. Miss. New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Burke, 53 Miss. 200, 24 AmR 689. Mo.-Spohn V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 87 Mo. 74, 101 Mo. 417, 14 SW 880. N. Y.-Victorson v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 137 NYS 860. N. C.-Pruett v. Southern R. Co., 164 N. C. 3, 80 SE 65, 49 LRANS 810, AnnCas1915D 54 and note. Pa.-Hillebrecht V. Pittsburg R. Co., 55 Pa. Super. 204; Barlick v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 41 Pa. Super. 87. S. C.-Anderson v. South Carolina, etc., R. Co., 77 S. C. 434, 58 SE 149, 122 AmSR 591; Franklin v. Atlanta, etc.. R. Co., 74 S. C. 332, 54 SE 578. Tex.-Dumas v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., (Civ. A.) 43 SW 908. Va.-Virginia R., etc., Co. v. McDemmick, 117 Va. 862, 86 SE 744; Connell v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 93 Va. 44, 24 SE 467, 57 AmSR 786, 32 LRA 792. Wash.-Anderson v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 88 Wash. 139, 152 P 1001. Wis.-Sure v. Milwaukee Electric R., etc., Co., 148 Wis. 1, 133 NW 1098, 37 LRANS 724, AnnCas1913A 1074; Kline V. Milwaukee Electric R., etc., Co., 146 Wis. 134, 131 NW 427, AnnCas1912C 276. [a] Degree of care. The rule that it is the duty of a carrier to use the highest degree of care to protect the passenger from wrong or injury by a fellow passenger applies only when the carrier has knowledge of the existence of the danger, or of the facts and circumstances from which the danger may reasonably be anticipated. Norris V. Southern R. Co. Carolina Div., 84 S. C. 15, 65 SE 956. 13 the latter to be severely burned, there is no liability on the part of the carrier, if its employees use every reasonable effort after the danger becomes apparent to prevent injury. Sullivan v. Jefferson Ave. R. Co., 133 Mo. 1, 34 SW 566, 32 LRA 167. senger while riding on a train, the carrier is not liable for a failure to exercise ordinary care to ascertain that such fellow passenger has a contagious disease. but is bound only to exercise ordinary care to protect decedent from contagion after the affliction of such fellow passenger has been either discovered or called to the attention of the carrier's con--Negligence cannot be predicated ductor. Bogard v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 144 Ky. 649, 139 SW 855, 36 LRA NS 337 and note. passen 43. Ala.-Gooch V. Birmingham R., etc., Co., 177 Ala. 293, 58 S 196. Ark.-Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Brown, 111 Ark. 288, 163 SW 525 (unexpected duel between gers); St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Wyatt, 84 Ark. 193, 105 SW 72. Colo.-Snyder v. Colorado Springs, etc., R. Co., 36 Colo. 288, 85 P 686, 118 AmSR 110, 8 LRANS 781 Ill.-Metropolitan West Side El. R. Co. v. Kersey. 80 Ill. A. 301; Springfield Consol. R. Co. v. Flynn, 55 I11. A. 600 Iowa. Felton v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 69 Iowa 577, 29 NW 618. V. Kan. Atchison, etc., R. Co. Gants, 38 Kan. 608, 17 P 54, 5 Am SR 780. Ky.-Hale v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 142 Ky. 835, 135 SW 398; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Renfro, 142 Ky. 590, 135 SW 266, 33 LRANS 133; Kinney v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 99 Ky. 59, 34 SW 1066, 17 KyL 1405; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. McEwan, 31 SW 465, 17 KyL 406. Mass.-Tracy v. Boston El. R. Co., 217 Mass. 569, 105 NE 351. Minn. Mullan v. Wisconsin Cent. Co., 46 Minn. 474, 49 NW 249. Mo.-Sira v. Wabash R. Co., 115 Mo. 127, 21 SW 905, 37 AmSR 386. N. Y.-Fanizzi v. New York, etc., R. Co., 113 App. Div. 440, 99 NYS 281; Thomson v. Manhattan R. Co., 75 Hun 548, 27 NYS 608; Kiernan v. Manhattan R. Co., 28 Misc. 516, 59 NYS 626 [rev 27 Misc. 841, 58 NYS 394]; Stutsky v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 88 NYS 358. Pa.-Widener V. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 224 Pa. 171, 73 A 209; Graeff v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 161 Pa. 230, 28 A 1107, 41 Am SR 885, 23 LRA 606; Barlick v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 41 Pa. Super. 87. Man.-Galbraith v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 24 Man. 291, 17 Dom LR 65, 28 West LR 307. [a] The swinging of a door against a passenger by a fellow passenger is an act for which the carrier ordinarily cannot be held liable. Tracy Boston El. R. Co., 217 Mass. 569, 105 NE 351; Kiernan v. Manhattan R. Co., 28 Misc. 516, 59 NYS 626. V. [b] Falling over parcels. A carrier is not liable for an injury to a passenger occasioned by the presence of a bag in the entrance to a car, unless it was charged with notice that the bag had been placed there, so as to become an obstacle to the safe entrance or exit. Jackson v. Boston El. R. Co., 217 Mass. 515, 105 NE 379, 51 LRANS 1152; Lyons v. Boston El. R. Co., 204 Mass. 227, 90 NE 419; Pitcher v. Old Colony St. R. Co., 196 Mass. 69, 81 NE 876, 124 AmSR 513, 13 LRANS 481 and note, 12 AnnCas 886 and note. [c] Throwing lighted match.[b] Contagious disease. Where a Where a passenger inadvertently passenger dies from measles com- throws a lighted match on the clothmunicated to him from a fellow pas-ing of another passenger, causing [d] Throwing baggage off train. against a railroad company merely on its failure to protect an intending passenger, standing on a station platform on its line, from injury due to the unauthorized action of a passenger unconnected with the railroad company, in throwing off his baggage while the train passed through without stopping. Galbraith v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 24 Man. 291, 17 DomLR 65, 28 West LR 307. 44. Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. McEwan, 51 SW 619, 21 KyL 487; Bailey v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 44 SW 105, 19 KyL 1617; Wood v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 42 SW 349, 19 KyL 924; Britton v. Atlanta, etc., Air-Line R. Co., 88 N. C. 536, 43 AmR 749. 45. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Renfro, 142 Ky. 590, 135 SW 266, 33 LRA NS 133 and note; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Vincent, 96 SW 898, 29 KyL 1049; Baker v. Texas, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. A.) 158 SW 263. [a] Self-defense.-A carrier is not liable for the death of a negro passenger killed by a white passenger riding in a negro compartment, in violation of Ky. St. §§ 795-799 (Russell St. 88 5343-5347), if the white passenger acted in necessary self-defense. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Renfro, 142 Ky. 590, 135 SW 266, 33 LRANS 133. [b] The words "conductor" and "manager," used in Ky. St. $$ 795800 (Russell St. §§ 5343-5348), requiring segregation of white and negro passengers, and requiring the conductor or manager to see that the statute is obeyed, mean the same person, except where one not designated as conductor is in charge of a train. Under such statute the conductor is the only employee directly responsible for the segregation, and it is only through his neglect that the company can be made liable for resultant injury to a passenger; but, if the brakeman, porter, or other employee connected with the passenger department of the train knows or is informed that a passenger is riding in a wrong compartment, he must notify the conductor as soon as practicable, and if he fails so to do, or if the conductor fails to act on such notification as soon as practicable, the company is liable for resultant injuries. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Renfro, 142 Ky. 590, 135 SW 266, 33 LRANS 133. 46. McDonnell v. New York Cent.. etc., R. Co., 35 App. Div. 147, 54 NYS 747 [app dism 159 N. Y. 524 mem, NE 1127 mem]; Anderson v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 88 Wash. 139, 152 P 1001. 53 47. Sure V. Milwaukee Electric R., etc., Co., 148 Wis. 1, 133 NW 1098. 37 LRANS 724 and note, AnnCas 1913A 1074 and note. [a] Illustration.-A street railroad company is not liable for injury to a passenger injured while standing in the rear vestibule of a car through the meddlesome act of a fellow passenger in suddenly releasing a brake in such manner that the handle swung around with great signal for the car or train to start, unless the employee in charge ratifies or adopts the unauthorized signal by allowing the car or train to proceed without seeing that passengers have alighted from or boarded the car in safety, or unless such employee by the exercise of due care and diligence could have prevented the moving of the car or train.50 So injury to a passenger from the negligent handling of a firearm by a fellow passenger has been held not to impose a liability where the carrier's employees had no reason to anticipate the accident,5 or used all available means to prevent it;52 but the carrier is liable where its employees are careless or negligent in allowing the passenger so to handle a firearm.5 So there is no liability of the carrier for injuries to a passenger 51 force, there being no showing of previous and similar meddlesome acts of passengers. Sure V. Milwaukee Electric R., etc., Co., 148 Wis. 1, 133 NW 1098, 37 LRANS 724, AnnCas 1913A 1074. 53 48. Cal. Cary v. Los Angeles R. Co., 157 Cal. 599, 108 P 682, 27 LRA NS 764, 21 AnnCas 1329 and note. Ill. -Vischer v. Northwestern El. R. Co., 171 Ill. A. 544 [aff 256 Ill. 572, 100 NE 270]. Kan.-Leavenworth Electric R. Co. v. Cusick, 60 Kan. 590, 57 P 519, 72 AmSR 374. Mass.-Killam v. Wellesley, etc., R. Co., 214 Mass. 283, 101 NE 374. Mo.-Krone v. Southwest Missouri Electric R. Co., 97 Mo. A. 609, 71 SW 712. N. Y.-McDonough v. Third Ave. R. Co., 95 App. Div. 311, 88 NYS 609; Wagner v. New York City R. Co., 107 NYS 807. Pa.-Cohen v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 228 Pa. 243, 77 A 500. R. I.-Moore v. Woonsocket St. R. Co., 27 R. I. 450, 63 A 313, 114 Am SR 59. Va.-Fanshaw V. Norfolk, etc., Tract. Co., 108 Va. 300, 61 SE 790. [a] There is no negligence of a street car company in the starting of a car which throws a passenger who is alighting, where the starting signal is given without authority by another passenger, and neither the motorman nor the conductor has any reason to believe that it will be SO given, the motorman believing that it is given by the conductor, the conductor instantly, on hearing the signal, calling to the motorman not to start, and the motorman then endeavoring to prevent the starting, as the company through its motorman and conductor is not required to anticipate and to take precautions against such an unauthorized signal. Cary v. Los Angeles R. Co., 157 Cal. 599, 108 P 682, 27 LRANS 764 and note, 21 AnnCas 1329 and note. 49. Leavenworth Electric R. Co. v. Cusick, 60 Kan. 590, 57 P 519, 72 AmSR 374. 50. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Cook, 145 Ill. 551, 33 NE 958; Neely v. Louisville, etc., Tract. Co., 53 Ind. A. 659, 102 NE 455; Nichols v. Lynn, etc., R. Co., 168 Mass. 528, 47 NE 427; Blair v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 141 App. Div. 843. 126 NYS 466. [a] Custom.-Evidence tending to show a custom of passengers on defendant's road to give the signals for stopping and starting a car is admissible, on the ground that it bears directly on the question of due care in permitting, or in failing to guard against, such acts. Nichols v. Lynn, etc., R. Co., 168 Mass. 528, 47 NE 427. 51. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. McEwan, 31 SW 465, 17 KyL 406; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Long, 13 Tex. Civ. A. 664, 36 SW 485. 52. Tall V. Baltimore Steam Packet Co., 90 Md. 248, 44 A 1007, 47 LRA 120. [a] Illustration.-Where two passengers on a boat engaged in a quarrel while the captain was in the resulting from the ignition or explosion of inflammable or explosive material carried by a passenger, if, in the exercise of a high degree of prudence and foresight, such as would be exercised by a very cautious, prudent, and competent person under similar circumstances, the danger could not have been avoided.54 Jostling or crowding passengers. A carrier is not as a general rule liable in damages for injury to a passenger caused by his being pushed or jostled by other passengers when getting on or off its vehicles,55 unless the conduct of such other passenger is unusual and disorderly and could be prevented by the employees in charge,56 or unless the carrier has reason to expect a large number of pas same room, and one of them withdrew from the room, and there was no reasonable ground to believe that he would return to use a deadly weapon, and he did return with a pistol and attacked his adversary, and the captain on being apprised of the resumption of the difficulty immediately interposed before a blow was struck, and did all in his power to stop the difficulty, but the pistol was fired and injured another passenger, the carrier was not liable for such injury, since a carrier does not insure the absolute safety of a passenger against assaults by a fellow passenger, but is only required to use all available means to prevent such injury. Tall V. Baltimore Steam Packet Co., 90 Md. 248, 44 A 1007, 47 LRA 120. 53. Northern Commercial Co. v. Nestor, 138 Fed. 383, 70 CCA 523; Flint v. Norwich, etc., Transp. Co., 9 F. Cas. No. 4,873, 6 Blatchf. 158, 34 Conn. 554; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Flake, 114 Tenn. 671 88 SW 326, 108 AmSR 925; West Memphis Packet Co. v. White, 99 Tenn. 256, 41 SW 583, 38 LRA 427. gun [a] Illustrations.-(1) A passensioned by the discharge of a ger can recover for an injury occawhich was dropped by one of several armed soldiers who had been quarreling and behaving in a disorderly manner for some time before the accident, and the agents of the carrier Flint made no effort to quiet them. v. Norwich, etc., Transp. Co., 9 F. Cas. No. 4,873, 6 Blatchf. 158, 34 Conn. 554. (2) Where certain passengers boarded a train, and, while under the influence of liquor, exploded dynamite sticks in the car and on the platforms, and fired pistols, but the carrier's servants, although knowing or having an opportunity to know of such acts, neglected to take proper precautions to prevent injury to others until another passenger was shot by the alleged accidental discharge of one of such weapons, the carrier was liable for the injury SO sustained. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Flake, 114 Tenn. 671, 88 SW 326, 108 AmSR 925. 54. Clarke v. Louisville, etc., R. Co.. 101 Ky. 34, 39 SW 840, 18 KyL 1082, 36 LRA 123, 49 SW 1120; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Shield, 9 Tex. Civ. A. 652, 28 SW 709, 29 SW 652; East Indian R. Co. v. Muskerjee, [1901] A. C. 396, 3 BRC 420. [a] Gasoline carried by fellow passenger-Where a passenger is injured by the explosion of a can of gasoline carried by a fellow passenger, the carrier is not liable in the absence of any circumstance tending to show that any official of the road knew that the can contained gasoline, or even knew that the can was on the car, or that the exercise of any reasonable degree of care and vigilance, had such official known of the situation of the can, would have required him to investigate its contents, under the circumstances of the case. Clarke v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 49 SW 1120, 20 KyL 1839. [b] Burning alcohol.-Where a passenger, without the knowledge of the railroad company, carried a jug of alcohol on a train, and without fault on the part of the company or its employees let it drop and the alcohol spilled, and before it could be removed from the floor of the car, another passenger, without the company's fault, accidentally set it on fire, and thereby plaintiff was injured, there could be no recovery against the company. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Shields, 9 Tex. Civ. A. 652, 28 SW 709, 29 SW 652. [c] Fireworks carried into car by fellow passengers-A carrier is liable for injuries sustained by a passenger in consequence of the explosion of fireworks carried into a car by fellow passengers only if the carrier was negligent in permitting the fireworks to be carried into the car. East Indian R. Co. v. Mukerjee, [1901] A. C. 396, 3 BRC 420. 55. Ind.-Furgason v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 16 Ind. A. 171, 44 NE 936. Ky.-South Covington, etc., R. Co. v. Harris, 152 Ky. 750, 154 SW 35. Mass.-Jackson V. Boston El. R. Co., 217 Mass. 515, 105 NE 379, 51 LRANS 1152 and note; Marr v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 208 Mass. 446, 94 NE 692. N. Y.-Glyn v. New York, etc., R. Co., 85 Hun 408, 32 NYS 1021. N. C.-Fritz v. Southern R. Co., 132 N. C. 829, 44 SE 613. Pa.-Ellinger v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 153 Pa. 213, 25 A 1132, 34 AmSR 697; Randall v. Frankford, etc., R. Co., 139 Pa. 464, 22 A 639. [a] Unexpected crowd.-Where a carrier had no warning that an extraordinary crowd of passengers would assemble and would push plaintiff on to a car, to her injury, such occurrence never having happened before, the carrier was not liable. Jackson v. Boston El. R. Co., 217 Mass. 515, 105 NE 379, 51 LRANS 1152. [b] Collision with fellow passenger who is being ejected.-A carrier is not liable for injuries received by a woman passenger in consequence of a drunken passenger colliding with her as he was being ejected by the conductor who ejected him as soon as he became obnoxious to the other passengers. Cobb v. Boston El. R. Co., 179 Mass. 212, 60 NE 476. [c] Darkness of place.-A passenger, injured through being pushed from the steps of a car in alighting, cannot recover on the theory that the place was dark, especially where she admits that it was light enough for her to see the skirts of the woman in front of her. Marr V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 208 Mass. 446, 94 NE 692. V. 56. Baldwin v. Fair Haven, etc., R. Co., 68 Conn. 567, 37 A 418; Kelley V. Boston El. R. Co.. 210 Mass. 454, 96 NE 1031; Jacobs West End St. R. Co., 178 Mass. 116, 59 NE 639; State v. Blunt, 110 Mo. 322, 19 SW 650; Randall v. Frankford, etc., R. Co., 139 Pa. 464, 22 A 639. sengers, and fails to use due care to provide sufficient guards or otherwise to protect passengers from injury by crowding.57 Assaults. The carrier is liable for the assault of a passenger by a fellow passenger, where such assault could have been prevented by the carrier or 58 but its employees by the exercise of proper care, not where its employees have used due care to protect the passengers from such assault,59 or where the assault is one which could not reasonably have been anticipated by them;60 and a carrier is not [b] Duty to clear exit.It is the duty of the conductor of a street car, who is on the rear platform when a passenger is alighting, to cause passengers blocking the exit to stand aside or to alight from the car temporarily. Jacobs v. West End St. R. Co., 178 Mass. 116, 59 NE 639. to protection from being jostled, | The liability of a carrier for an inetc., by other passengers, commen- jury to a passenger by an unprovoked surate with the impairment of her assault of a third person depends ability to care for herself resulting on whether there is evidence showing from carrying the child. Glennen v. that the employees of the carrier Boston El. R. Co., 207 Mass. 497, 93 knew, or by due care should have NE 700, 32 LRANS 470. known from the facts, that the injury to the passenger was impending, which injury by the exercise of a high degree of care might have been guarded against. Brown v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 139 Fed. 972, 72 CCA 20, 2 LRANS 105, 3 AnnCas 251. (2) Where the circumstances and surroundings, conduct, speech, or manner of one passenger toward another is such that violence or harm is likely to result, and the carrier has reasonable notice of such circumstances and conduct, and has the opportunity to take measures to prevent threatened violence, then it becomes its duty to protect the threatened passenger and to see that no harm comes to him. Isenberg v. New York, etc., R. Co., 221 Mass. 182, 108 NE 1046. or [c] Mutual duties. It is the duty of the brakeman and of the conductor to endeavor to prevent the departing passengers from being jostled hustled as they are seeking egress from the cars; it is equally the duty of a passenger to wait until the outcoming passengers have safely alighted before he attempts to ascend the steps of the cars. State v. Blunt, 110 Mo. 322, 19 SW 650. 58. U. S.-Brown v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 139 Fed. 972, 72 CCA 20, 2 LRANS 105 and note, 3 AnnCas 251 and note; Murphy v. Western, etc., R. Co., 23 Fed. 637. Ala.-Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Mobley, 69 S 614; Culberson v. Empire Coal Co., 156 Ala. 416, 47 S 237. Colo.-Wright v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 4 Colo. A. 102, 35 P 196. 57. South Covington, etc., R. Co. v. Harris, 152 Ky. 750, 154 SW 35; [c] Colored passenger assaulted. Danovitz v. Blue Hill St. R. Co., 218(1) Where a colored passenger was Mass. 421, 105 NE 353; Cousineau v. made to dance and to sing, and was Muskegon Tract., etc., Co., 152 Mich. subjected to many indignities, in48, 115 NW 987; Reschke v. Syracuse, sulted, and assaulted by drunken etc., R. Co., 155 App. Div. 48, 139 white passengers, and the conductor, NYS 555 [aff 211 N. Y. 602 mem, although appealed to, refused to in105 NE 1097 mem]. terfere, but signaled with a wink that he was willing that the illtreatment should be continued, the company was liable. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Jefferson, 89 Ga. 554, 16 SE 69, 32 AmSR 87, 17 LRA 571. (2) Where a colored passenger who had bought a first-class ticket was taken by force from the car in which he had taken a seat, and in which he had a right to be, and carried into another by his fellow passengers, the employees of the company knowing | this and not attempting to prevent it, the railroad company was liable. In this case the court said: "If the conductor and brakeman conspired with the passengers to remove the plaintiff, the railroad company is liable; or, if these agents of the road saw what these passengers were doing to their fellow passenger, and made no effort to prevent the mischief, gave it no discountenance, or made no attempt to repair the mischief by restoring the plainiff to the seat from which he was removed, the railroad company was liable." Murphy v. Western, etc., R. Co., 23 Fed. 637. 640. D. C.- Flannery v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 15 D. C. 111. Ga. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Jefferson, 89 Ga. 554, 16 SE 69, 32 Am SR 87, 17 LRA 571. Ind.- Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. V. Richardson, 40 Ind. A. 503, 82 NE 536; Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Darting, 6 Ind. A. 375, 33 NE 636. Ky.-Louisville R. Co. v. Dott, 161 Ky. 759, 171 SW 438, LRA1915C 681 and note. Mass.-Isenberg V. New York, etc., R. Co., 221 Mass. 182, 108 NE 1046. Minn. Jansen v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 112 Minn. 496, 128 NW 826, 32 LRANS 1206 and note. N. Y. Hendricks v. Sixth Ave. R. Co., 44 N. Y. Super. 8. N. C.-Penny V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 153 N. C. 296, 69 SE 238, 32 LRANS 1209. S. C.-Spires v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 92 S. C. 564, 75 SE 950; Anderson v. South Carolina, etc., R. Co., 81 S. C. 1, 61 SE 1096. Tex.-International, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 9 Tex. Civ. A. 104, 28 SW 233. Va.-Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Birchfield, 105 Va. 809, 54 SE 879. Wash.--Kelly v. Navy Yard Route, 77 Wash. 148, 137 P 444. [a] Degree of care.-A carrier must exercise the highest degree of care to protect passengers from assaults by fellow passengers or strangers. Louisville R. Co. v. Dott, 161 Ky. 759, 171 SW 438, LRA1915C 681 and note; Kelly v. Navy Yard Route, 77 Wash. 148, 137 P 444. [b] Knowledge of danger.-(1) [d] Application of statute.-A statute which makes a railroad company liable for any damages done by the running of cars, or by any person in its employment or service, unless the company shows due care on the part of its agents, does not apply where a passenger injured in an affray with a fellow passenger on a train sues the railroad company for damages. Davis v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 110 Ga. 305, 34 SE 1001 (under Civ. Code § 2321). 59. Kinney v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 99 Ky. 59, 34 SW 1066. Illinois 60. Miss.-Royston V. Cent. R. Co., 67 Miss. 376, 7 S 320. Mo.-Sira V. Wabash R. Co., 115 Mo. 127, 21 SW 905, 37 AmSR 386. N. J.-Kiwoczka v. Public Service R. Co.. 32 N. J. L. J. 144. Pa. Hillebrecht V. Pittsburg R. Co., 55 Pa. Super. 204. Tex.-Pecos, etc.. R. Co. v. Twich ell, (Civ. A.) 145 SW 319; Thweatt v. Houston, etc., R. Co., 31 Tex. Civ. A. 227. 71 SW 976. A street (2) [a] Illustrations.—(1) railroad company cannot be held in damages for injuries to a passenger struck by another passenger, where it appears that but one blow was struck, and that this blow was struck suddenly and without warning by a passenger who up to that moment had been quiet and orderly, and who had had no altercation with the person he struck. Hillebrecht v. Pittsburg R. Co., 55 Pa. Super. 204. Where, while the crew of a train which had stopped at a regular meal station were eating their dinner, a passenger who had remained in the car was assaulted by an intruder and another passenger, the company was not liable, as the leaving of the train with no one in charge while the crew were taking their meals was a reasonable regulation, and the assault one which could not reasonably have been anticipated by them. Thweatt v. Houston, etc., R. Co., 31 Tex. Civ. A. 227, 71 SW 976. [b] Conductor attending to other duties.-Where a passenger is beaten by a fellow passenger while the conductor is attending to his duties in another part of the train and does not know of the assault or of threats to make it, no recovery can be had against the carrier. Royston v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 67 Miss. 376, 7 S 320. 61. Isenberg v. New York, etc., R. Co., 221 Mass. 182, 108 NE 1046. 62. Isenberg v. New York, etc., R. Co., 221 Mass. 182, 108 NE 1046. 63. Ala.-Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Mobley, 69 S 614; Southern R. Co. v. Lee, 167 Ala. 268, 273, 52 S 648 [cit Cyc]. Ky-Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Bell, 166 Ky. 400, 179 SW 400; Wood v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 101 Ky. 703, 42 SW 349, 19 KyL 924. Mo.-Williams v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 119 Mo. A. 663, 96 SW 307. S. C.-Franklin V. Atlanta, etc.. R. Co., 74 S. C. 332, 54 SE 578. Tenn.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hatch, 116 Tenn. 580, 94 SW 671. (2) [a] Indecent language to colored passenger.-(1) Although a rule of a railroad or a state law prohibits colored passengers from riding in the same coach with white passengers, this does not justify the carrier's employees in permitting other passengers to use profane and indecent language in their effort to compel a colored servant accompanying a white passenger to leave the coach. Southern R. Co. v. Lee, 167 Ala. 268, 273, 52 S 648 [cit Cyc]. A carrier whose agents permit white passengers to remain in a compartment set apart for colored passengers is responsible for their conduct as long as they remain there, and is liable for the annoyance or insult. sustained by a colored passenger as a result thereof. although its employees do not know what is taking place. Bailey v. Louisville, etc.. R. Co., 44 SW 105. 19 KyL 1617; Wood v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 101 Ky. 703. 42 SW 349, 19 KyL 924. [b] Leaving car for long time.Where the employees of a railroad company have been negligent in leaving the car for a long period, they cannot escape liability for indignities |