COMMON CARRIERS OF Common carriers of passengers are such as undertake for hire to carry all persons in differently who may apply for passage, so long as there is room, and there is no legal excuse for refusing. Thomps. Carriers of Passengers 26, n. § 1; Vinton v. R. Co., 11 Allen (Mass.) 304, 87 Am. Dec. 714 : Hollis ter v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 239, 32 Am. Dec. 455; Bennett v. Dutton, 10 N. H. 486 ; Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. Yarwood, 15 111. 472 ; Jencks v. Coleman, 2 Sumn. 221, Fed. Cas. No. 7,258; 3 B. & B. 54.
A company owning parlor and sleeping cars, who enter into no contract of carriage with the passenger, but only give him su perior accommodations, was formerly held not a common carrier ; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Smith, 73 Ill. 360, 24 Am. Rep. 258 ; Duval v. Palace Car Co., 62 Fed. 265, 10 C. C. A. 331, 33 L. R. A. 715. See PARLOR Cass; SLEEPING Curs. A street railway company is a common carrier of passengers and liable as such on common-law prin ciples; Spellman v. Transit Co., 36 Neb. 890, 55 N. W. 270, 20 L. R. A. 316, 38 Am. St. Rep. 753. See STREET RAILWAYS.
Common carriers may excuse themselves when there is an unexpected press of travel and all their means are exhausted. But where it appears that there is usually a large crowd at a particular station for a particular train, it is evidence of negligence on the part of the carrier in failing to an ticipate the large crowd and take precau tions to protect intending passengers from injury therefrom ; Kuhlen v. Ry. Co., 19., Mass. 341, 79 N. E. 815, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 729, 118 Am. St. Rep. 516. And see Bennett v. Dutton, 10 N. H. 486 ; and they may for good cause exclude a passenger: thus, they are not required to carry drunken and dis orderly persons, or one affected with a con tagious disease, or those who come on board to assault passengers, commit a crime, flee from justice, gamble, or interfere with the proper regulations of the carrier, and dis turb the comfort of the passengers; Thurs ton v. R. Co., 4 Dill. 321, Fed. Cas. No. 14,019; Pearson v. Duane, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 605, 18 L. Ed. 447; O'Brien v. R. Co., 15 Gray (Mass.) 20, 77 Am. Dec. 347; Pitts burgh, C. & St. L. Ky. Co. v. Vandyne, 57 Ind. 576, 26 Am. Rep. 68; Pittsburgh & C. R. Co. v. Pillow, 76 Pa. 510, 18 Am. Rep. 424; Railway Co. v. Valleley, 32 Ohlo St.
345, 30 Am. Rep. 601; or one whose pur pose is to injure the carrier's business ; Jencks v. Coleman, 2 Sumn. 221, Fed. Cas. No. 7,258; Barney v. Martin, 11 Blatchf.
233, Fed. Cas. No. 1,030; but if a carrier re ceives a passenger, knowing that a good cause exists for his exclusion, he cannot afterwards eject him for such cause ; Pear son v. Duane, 4 Wall. (LT. S.) 605, 18 L. Ed. 447; Tarbell v. R. Co., 34 Cal. 616. Where one rightfully on a train as a passenger is put off, it is of itself a good cause of action against the company irrespective of any physical injury that may have resulted ; New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Winter, 143 U. S. 60, 12 Sup. Ct. 356, 36 L. Ed. 71. It is not liable for injuries resulting from one trying to steal a ride on a freight train Planz v. R. Co., 157 Mass. 377; 32 N. E. 356, 17 L. R. A. 835.
Passenger-carriers are not held respon sible as insurers of the safety of their pas sengers, as common carriers of goods are. But they are bound to the very highest de gree of care and watchfulness in regard to all their appliances for the conduct of their business ; so that, as far as human fore sight can secure the safety of passengers, there is an unquestionable right to demand it of all who enter upon the business of passenger-carriers ; Spellman v. Rapid Transit Co., 36 Neb. 890, 55 N. W. 270, 20' L. R. A. 316, 38 Am. St. Rep. 753: Texas Central R. Co. v. Stuart, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 642, 20 S. W. 962; Chicago, P. & St. L. R. Co. v. Lewis, 145 Ill. 67, 33 N. E. 960; L. R. 9 Q. B. 122 ; 2 Q. B. D. 377; White v. R. Co., 136 Mass. 321; Pennsylvania Co. v. Roy, 102 U. S. 451, 26 L. Ed. 141; Phila delphia & R. R. Co. v. Anderson, 94 Pa. 351, 39 Am. Rep. 787. They are liable only for injuries resulting from their negligence; [1901] A. C. 496 ; and such negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury; Be yard v. L. Traction Co., 74 Neb. 802, 105 N. W. 635, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 318. A carrier is not permitted to contract against liability for negligence, but a private carrier may. by special contract; Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Henry, 170 Ind. 94, 83 N. E. 710. Where a conductor negligently assists a passenger from the car to the station' plat form, the company is responsible for inju ries resulting therefrom ; Hanlon v. R. Co., 187 N. Y. 73, 79 N. E. 846, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 411, 116 Am. St. Rep. 591, 10 Ann. Cas. 366 ; and even carrying a passenger at reduced fare does not entitle the carrier to stipulate for an exemption from liability for negli gence; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. IR. Co. v. Higgs, 165 Ind. 694, 76 N. E. 299, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1081.