The degree of speed allowable upon a rail way depends upon the condition of the road; 5 Q. B. 747.
Passenger-carriers are not responsible where the injury resulted directly from the negligence of the passenger ; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Jones, 95 U. S. 439, 24 L. Ed.506; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Aspell, 23 Pa. 147, 62 Am. Dec. 323 ; 3 B. & Ald. 304.
It is the duty of a street railway com pany to stop when a passenger is about to plight and not to start again until be has done so ; Washington & G. R. Co. v. Harmon, 147 U. S. 571, 13 Sup. Ct. 557, 37 L. Ed. 284; but the act of alighting from a moving car is not negligence per se, regardless of at tending circumstances ; Duncan v. Ry. Co, 48 Mo. App. 659; McCaslin v. Ry. Co., 93 Mich. 553, 53 N. W. 724 ; Ober v. R. Co., 44 La. Ann. 1059, 11 South. 818, 32 Am. St Rep. 366 ; Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Johnson, 44 Ill. App. 56 ; but see Brown v. Barnes, 151 Pa. 562, 25 Atl. 144. A carrier is not liable, because it fails to stop a train for an intending passenger, for injury to his health, where he later procured a carriage to drive him across country on a stormy night to avoid delay in waiting for the next train ; International & G. N. R. Co. v. Ad dison, 100 Tex. 241, 97 S. W. 1037, 8 L. B. A. (N. S.) 880.
Carriers of passengers are bound to carry for the whole route for which they stipulate, and according to their public advertisements and the general usage and custom of their business; Weed v. R. Co., 19 Wend. (N.Y.) 534; 8 E. L. & Eq. 362. The carrier's lia bility extends over the entire route for which he has contracted to carry, though the destination is reached over connecting lines; McElroy v. R. Co., 4 Cush. (Mass.) 400, 50 Am. Dec. 794; McLean v. Burbank, 11 Minn. 277 (Gil. 189); Candee v. R. Co., 21 Wis. 582, 94 Am. Dec. 566. But the carrier is also liable on whose line the loss or injury is suffered ; Hood v. R. Co., 22 Conn. 502 ; Sprague v. Smith, 29 Vt. 421; Briggs v. Vanderbilt, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 222.
Where a passenger holds a coupon ticket (not jointly issued) over connecting lines and is delayed by the negligence of a pre ceding carrier, a succeeding road is not bound to carry him on such ticket if it has expired; Brian v. 'R. Co., 40 Mont. 109, 105 Pac. 489, 20 Ann. Cas. 311; New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Bennett, 50 Fed. 496, 1 C. C. A. 544; otherwise where it was a round trip ticket and the initial and last carrier were the same and the delay was by an intermediate carrier, the ticket being refused on the return by the last carrier ; Stevens v. R. Co., 45 Tex. Civ. App. 196, 100 S. W. 807. Where the ticket is jointly is sued, the passenger is entitled to complete his journey after the time has expired ; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Looney, 85 Tex. 158, 19 S. W. 1039, 16 L. R. A. 471, 34 Am. St. Rep. 787. If all the lines are operated by the company selling the ticket, and the passenger commences his journey within- the period, he may complete it after the ticket, by its terms has expired ; Brian v. R. Co., 40 Mont. 109, 105 Pac. 489, 20 Ann. Cas. 311.
Where a passenger is carried some dis tance beyond his destination, and ejected against his protest, being compelled to walk back to the station, the company is liable for breach of contract ; Evansville & ,R. R. Co. v. Byte, 6 Ind. App. 52, 32 N. E. 1134 ; and so where he was injured in walking back on a dark night; Kentucky & I. Bridge & R. R. Co. v. Buckler, 125 Ky. 24, 100 S. W. 328, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 555, 128 Am. St. Rep. 234.
Passenger-earriers may establish reason able regulations in regard to the conduct of passengers, and discriminate between those who conform to their rules in regard to obtaining tickets, and those who do not, -requiring more fare of the latter ; Chi cago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Parks, 18 Ill. 460, 68 Am. Dec. 562 ; Hilliard v. Goold, 34 N. H. 230, 66 Am. Dec. 765 ; Stephen v. Smith, 29 Vt. 160; Com. v. Power, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 596, 41 Am. Dec. 465 ; State v. Overton, 24 N. J. L. 435, 61 Am. Dec. 671; 29 E. L. & Eq. 143 ;
Crocker v. R. Co., 24 Conn. 249; Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Mays, 4 Ind. App. 413, 30 N. E. 1106; but a passenger is not bound to com ply with the rules of a company unless they are reasonable ; Central Railroad & Bank ing Co. v. Strickland, 90 Ga. 562, 16 S. E. 352. Passengers may be required to go through in the same train or forfeit the re mainder of their tickets; Cheney v. R. R. Co., 11 Mete. (Mass.) 121, 45 Am. Dec. 190; Oil Creek & A. R. Ry. Co. v. Clark, 72 Pa. 231; State v. Overton, 24 N. J. L. 438, 61 Am. Dec. 671; Cleveland, C. & C. R. Co. v. Bartram, 11 Ohio St. 462; Gulfz, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Henry, 84 Tex. 678, 19 S. W. 870, 16 L. R. A. 318. The words "good this trip only" upon a ticket will not limit the un dertaking of the company to any particular day or any specific train,-they relate to a journey and not to a time ; and the ticket is good if used at any time within six years from its date ; Pier v. Finch, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 514; Drew v. R. Co., 51 Cal. 425. See Lundy v. R. Co., 66 Cal. 191, 4 Pac. 1193, 56 Am. Rep. 100 ; Auerbach v. ,R. Co., 89 N. Y. 281, 42 Am. Rep. 290 ; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Looney, 85 Tex. 158, 19 S. W. 1039, 16 L. R. A. 471, 34 Am. St. Rep. 787; but a ticket "good for this day only," or for "only two days after date," is of no valid ity after that date though not used ; Boston & L. R. Co. v. Proctor, 1 Allen (Mass.) 267, 79 Am. Dec. 729 ; Gale v. R. Co., 7 Hun (N. Y.) 670. Where a passenger buys a ticket which is silent as to stop-over priv ileges, he may rely on the statements of the ticket agent on that subject; New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Winter, 143 U. S. 60, 12' Sup. Ct. 356, 36 L. Ed. 71. In determining what is a reasonable regulation the con venience of both the public and the com pany must be considered ; Faber v. .Ry. Co., 62 Minn. 433, 64 N. W. 918, 36 L. R. A. 789, where the schedule was disarranged and no notice given that the car would not pro ceed to its destination. It was held that the passenger could not be required to trans fer to a car ahead ; Burrow v. Ry. & Light Co., 12 Va. L. Reg. 763; contra, 37 Can. Sup. Ct. 523 ; but where a transfer is compel led there is a remedy for failure to provide seats in the new car ; Louisville, N. 0. & T. Ry. Co. v. Patterson, 69 Miss. 421, 13 South. 697, 22 L. R. A. 259; see Camden & A. R. R. Co. v. Hoosey, 99 Pa. 492, 497, 44 Am. Rep. 120. An ordinance imposing a penalty for unnecessary changes is reason able ; City of New York v. ,Ify. Co., 43 Misc. 29, 86 N. Y. Supp. 673. It is the duty of the carrier to give information necessary the journey ; Dwinelle v. R. Co., 120 N. Y. 117, 24 N. E. 319, 8 L. R. A. 224, 17 Am. St. Rep. 611; as of circumstances likely to. cause delay ; Hasseltine v. Railway, 75 S. C. 141, 55 S. E. 142, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1009 ; and passengers have the right to rely on in formation given; Pennsylvania Co. v. Hoag land, 78 Ind. 203. The obligation is treated. as an incident of the business ; see 20 Harv. L. Rev. 232 ; but in England false informa tion is dealt with as if deceit; 5 El. & Bl. 860.
Railway passengers, when required by the regulations of the company to surrender their tickets in exchange for the conduc tor's checks, are liable to be expelled from the cars for a refusal to comply with such regulation, or to pay fare again ; Northern R. Co. v. Page, 22 Barb. (N. Y..) 130; or for refusal to exhibit a ticket at the request of the conductor in compliance with the stand ing regulations. of the company; Hibbard v. !R. Co., 15 N. Y. 455. See Ticimr.
Railway companies may exclude mer chandise from their passenger trains. It is not the duty of a company to search, every parcel carried by a passenger, and it is not guilty for the death of a fellow passenger resulting from an explosion of fire works carried by another ; [1901] A. C. 396. The company is not bound to carry a passenger daily whose trunk or trunks contain mer chandise, money, or other things known as "express matter" ; 5 Am. Law Reg. 364.