Home >> Bouvier's Law Dictionary >> Safe to Smuggling >> Sleeping Car_P1

Sleeping-Car

co, car, rep, palace, am, pullman and sleeping

Page: 1 2 3

SLEEPING-CAR. The servants and em ployes in charge of sleeping or drawing-room cars are considered in the same light as if they were employed by the railroad company, notwithstanding the existence of a separate agreement between the railroad and the sleeP ing-car company, whereby the latter furnish es its own servants and conductors, and has exclusive control of the cars used on the for mer company's road; Kinsley v. R. Co., 125 Mass. 54, 28 Am. Rep. 200.

Sleeping car companies are not liable as inn-keeepers; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Smith, 73 Ill. 360, 24 Am. Rep. 258; Welch v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 16 Abb. Pr. (N. S. N. Y.) 352 ; Falls River & Mach. Co. v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 6 Ohio Dec. 85; contra, Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Lowe, 28 Neb. 239, 44 N. W. 226, 6 L. R. A. 809, 26 Am. St. Rep. 325; but see Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Woods, 76 Neb. 694, 107 N. W. 85$ (where, without comment on the prior 'cases, the liability is put upon the ground of negli gence); nor as common carriers ; Pullman. Palace Car Co. v. Smith, 73 Ill. 360, 24 Am. Rep. 258; Lewis v. New York Sleeping Car Co., 143 Mass. 267, 9 N. E. 615, 58 Am. Rep. 135; Williams v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 40 La. Ann. 87, 3 South. 631, 8 Am. St. Rep. 512; Adams v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 151 N. Y. 163, 45 N. E. 369, 34 L. R. A. 682, 56 Am. St. Rep. 616; Pullman Car Co. v. Gardner, 3 Penny. (Pa.) 78; Calhoun v. Pull: man Co., 159 Fed. 387, 86 C. C. A. 387, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 575; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Handy, 63 Miss. 609, 56 Am. Rep. 846 ; Lem on v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 52 Fed. 262; nor as a carrier providing staterooms for his passengers; Crozier v. Steamboat Co., 43 How. Pr. (N. 466. They are liable for negligence as bailees for hire; Woodruff Sleeping & Parlor Coach Co. v. Diehl, 84 Ind. 474, 43 Am. Rep. 102 ; Illinois Central R. Co. v. Handy, 63 Miss. 609, 56 Am. Rep. 846, and note; Morrow v. Palace Car Co., 98 Mo. App. 351, 73 S. W. 281; Pullman Co. Schaffner, 126 Ga. 609, 55 S. E. 933, 9 FL A. (N. T.) 407, and note collecting cases on the duty of the company as to baggage and effects of passengers. See also

21 Harv. L. Rev. 367. The liability rests solely on the breach of the implied obligation to furnish such accommodations as the com-' pany holds itself out as offering to the pub lic; Calhoun v. Palace Car Co., 149 Fed., 546. It impliedly undertakes to keep a rea sonable watch on the passenger and his prop erty ; Woodruff Sleeping & Parlor Coach Co. v. Diehl, 84 Ind. 474, 43 Am. Rep. 102 ; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Matthews, 74 Tex. 654, 12 S. W. 744, 15 Am. St. Rep. 873; Lew is v. Sleeping Car Co., 143 Mass. 267, 9 N. E. 615, 58 Am. Rep. 135; but no more; Pullman' Palace Car Co. v. Gaylord, 6 Ky. L. Rep.

279 ; It is liable only where there is a lack of ordinary care; Falls River & Mach. Co. v. Palace Car Co., 6 Ohio Dec. 85; Lewis v. Sleeping Car Co., 143 Mass. 267, 9 N. E. 615, 58 Am. Rep. 135 ; whether the passen ger is in his berth or in the washroom Root v. Sleeping Car Co., 28 Mo. App. 199 ; Kates v. Palace Car Co., 95 Ga. 810, 23 S. E. 186; while he is asleep ; Pullman Pal ace Car Co. v. Smith, 73 Ill. 360, 24 Am. Rep. 258; Scaling v. Palace Car Co., 24 Mo. App. 29; or while occupying his berth; Lew is v. Sleeping Car Co., 143 Mass. 267, 9 N. E. 615, 58 Am. Rep. 135. To exercise this care and keep due watch is the contract; Pull man's Palace Car Co. v. Martin, 95 Ga. 314, 22 S. E. 700, 29 L. R. A. 498 ; the company Is liable for theft of a passenger's property due to disobedience of its regulations by its servants; Pullman Car Co. v. Gardner, 3 Penny. (Pa.) 78.

The company is liable-in any case-only for a reasonable amount of money and per sonal belongings appropriate to the circum stances of the plaintiff ; Barrott v. Palace Car Co., 51 Fed. 796; Lewis v. Sleeping Car 'Co., 143 Mass. 267, 9 N. E. 615, 58 Am. Rep. 135; Root v. Sleeping Car Co., 28 Mo. App. 199; Hillis v. R. Co., 72 Ia. 228, 33 N. W. 643; Williams v. Webb, 22 Misc. Rep. 513, 49 N. Y. Supp. 1111. In the absence of evidence of what is a reasonable amount, it has been held that the verdict must be for nominal damages only; Wilson v. R. Co., 32 Mo. App. 682.

Page: 1 2 3