A state may by statute limit the right of recovery for injuries to certain classes of persons ; Martin v. R. Co., 203 U. S. 284, 27 Sup. Ct. 100, 51 L. Ed. 184.
It is not responsible to persons board ing trains to assist passengers; Hill v. R. Co., 124 Ga. 243, 52 S. E. 651, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 432 ; to purchase fruit from one not in the employ of the railroad company ; Peter son v. R. Co., 143 N. C. 260, 55 S. E. 618, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1240, 118 Am. St. Rep. 799 ; or to speak to a passenger thereon ; Bullock v. R. Co. (Tex.) 55 S. W. 184; and it owes no duty to them.
Where an injury occurs on cars chartered by an association or individual, the carrier is liable to a passenger thereon as in other cases ; Clerc v. R. & S. S. Co., 107 La. 370, 31 South. 886, 90 Am. St. Rep. 319 ; Estes v. R. Co., 110 Mo. App. 725, 85 S. W. 627; Collins v. R. Co., 15 Tex. Civ. App. 169, 39 S. W. 643; and so where such a passenger has been ejected from such a train ; Kirk land v. R. Co., 79 S. C. 273, 60 S. E. 668, 128 Am. St. Rep. 848. Where a train is signalled at a section house, which is not a regular stopping-place, and a person boards it without any one's knowledge, and in do ing so is injured, the carrier is not liable ; Georgia Pac. R. Co. v. 'Robinson, 68 Miss. 643, 10 South. 60.
The passenger must be ready and willing to pay such fare as is required by the es tablished regulations of the carriers in con formity with law. But an • actual tender of fare or passage-money does not seem requi site in order to maintain an action for an absolute refusal to carry, and much less is it necessary in an action for any injury sus tained; 6 C. B. 775 ; 2 Kent 598. The rule of law is the same in regard to paying fare in advance that it is as to freight, except that, the usage in the former case being to take pay in advance, a passenger is expect ed to have procured his ticket before he had taken passage.
It is the carrier's duty to maintain safe stations and approaches, whether on their own premises or on another's and main tained by them; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Trautwein, 52 N. J. L. 109, 19 Atl. 178, 7 L. R. A. 435, 19 Am. St. Rep. 442 ; Tobin v. R. Co., 59 Me. 183, 8 Am. Rep. 415 ; or
even where maintained by another; Cotant v. R. Co., 125 Ia. 46, 99 N. W. 115, 69 L. R. A. 982 ; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Glenk, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 599, 606, 30 S. W. 278; Schlessinger v. R. Co., 49 Misc. 504, 98 N. Y. Supp. 840 ; Beard v. R. Co., 48 Vt. 101; but in such case it is suggested that the li ability is rather for not guarding the car rier's premises so that the defective ap proach would not be used ; 20 Harv. L. Rev. 67. If there are two approaches and one is faulty, the carrier is liable to one using it; 19 C. B. N. S. 183. In making platforms safe the care required is not the highest de gree of care, but ordinary care ; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. Louis R. Co. v. Harris, 38 Ind. App. 77, 77 N. E. 1051; Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Scates, 90 Ill. 586 ; but they have been held to all that human sagacity and foresight can do and liable for slightest neg ligence; Zimmer v. R. Co., 36 App. Div. 265, 55 N. Y. Supp. 308 ; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Wightman's Adm'r, 29 Grath (Va.) 431, 26 Am. Rep. 384.
A carrier is liable for severe illness of a passenger caused by negligent failure to heat its cars properly ; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Powell, 127 Ga. 805, 56 S. E. 1006, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 769, 9 Ann. Cas. 553.
It is the duty of a steamship company running a night boat to supply berths to un objectionable passengers in the order of ap plication; Patterson v. S. S. Co., 140 N. U. 412, 53 S. E. 224. And they must absolutely protect passengers against the misconduct of their own servants engaged in executing the contract; New Jersey S. B. Co. v. Brockett, 121 U. S. 637, 7 Sup. Ct. 1039, 30 L. Ed. 1049 ; Haver v. R. Co., 62 N. J. L. 282, 41 Atl. 916, 43 L. R. A. 84, 72 Am. St. Rep. 647; but if an employe is free from liability for injury done a passenger, the carrier is also ; New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. v. Jopes, 142 U. S. 18, 12 Sup. Ct. 109, 35 L. Ed. 919. Where one enters a ticket office to buy a ticket he is entitled to the protection of a passenger, although the agent refuse to sell him a ticket; Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Galliher, 89 Va. 639, 16 S. E. 935.