Изображения страниц

free ticket, when he had made only half his journey. On the other hand, there would be no injustice in a refusal to allow him to start upon the journey. See, also, note to preceding section, and Part I, Chap. 2, Sies. 11 to 17, inclusive, Red. on Carriers, etc., and case- cited in notes.







SECTIOX 2096. Degree of care required.

Ingree of care required.

2096. A carrier of persons without reward must use ordinary care and diligence for their safe carriage.

VOTE.- As extreme care is required of carriers for reward (sce Section 2100) out of regard for human life, it seems to follow that at least ordinary care should be required of gratuitous carriers. See, also, Part I, Chap. 2, Red. on Car., etc., Sec. 13. It is here said, that to hold such carriers bound to slight care, the omission of which is gross negligence (as in Knowles VS. A. & St. L. R. Co., 38 Me., p. 55; Storer vs. Gowen, 18 Me., p. 174; Tompkins vs. Saltmarsh, 14 S. & R., p. 275), is more or less a failure in defining his degree of diligence. The author confines the diligence to such care as every honest, fair-minded man would blush to omit, or his friends would blush for him if he did.-Langley vs. Brown, 1 Moore & P., p. 583.



SECTION 2100. General duties of carrier.

2101. Vehicles.
2102. Not to overload his vehicle.

SECTION 2103. Treatment of passengers.

2104. Rate of speed and delays.

2100. A carrier of persons for reward must iise Gencial

duties of the utmost care and diligence for their safe carriage, carrier. must provide everything necessary for that purpose, and must exercise to that end a reasonable degree of skill.

NOTE.-The rule laid down by the Sup. Ct., Vass., in Ingalls vs. Bills, 9 Met. R., p. 1, after a careful consideration of the circumstances of the case, was: “That carriers of passengers for hire are bound to use the utmost care and diligence in the providing of safe, sufficient, and suitable coaches, liarnesses, horses, and coachmen, in order to prevent those injuries which human care and foresight can guard against," etc.; otherwise, where accident arises from hidden internal defeet, which careful examination would not disclose, and the most vigilant oversight could guard against, etc.-Angell on Car., Sec. 536; Red. Car., Part III, Chap. 1, Sec. 340: “ It is agreed on all hands that carriers of passengers are only liable for negligence, either proximate or remote, and that they are not insurers of the safety of their passengers, as they are as common carriers of goods and of the baggage of passengers. The rule is clearly laid down in one of the early cases by Eyre, Ch. J., that carriers of passengers are not liable for injuries happening to passengers from unforseen accident or misfortune, when there has been no negligence or default in the diiver.'!--Aston vs. Heaven, 2 E: p., p. 533; S. P. Frink vs. Potter, 17 Ill., p. 196; Munroe vs. Leach, 7 Met., p. 274; see, also, Ang. on Carr., Secs. 521, 523, 534, 539; Edgerton vs. N. Y. and Harlem R. R., 35 Barb., p. 193; Bowen vs. N. Y. Central R. R., 18 N. Y., p. 408.

2101. A carrier of persons for reward is bound to Vehiclos provide vehicles safe and fit for the purposes to which they are put, and is not excused for default in this respect by any degree of care.

NOTE.-Ang. on Carr., Secs. 521-523, 534-539;
Edgerton vs. N. Y. & Harlem R. R., 35 Barb., p.
193; Bowen vs. N. Y. Central R. R., 18 N. Y., p. 408;
Aiden vs. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 26 N. Y.,
see Hegeman vs. Western R. R., 13 id., p. 9; Shaip vs.
Grey, 9 Bing., p. 457; but see Ingalls vs. Bills, 9 Metc.,

p. 102;

p. 1.

Not to 2102. A carrier of persons for reward must not overload his vehicle. overcrowd or overload his vehicle.

NOTE.-Angell on Carr., Sec. 528; Derwort vs. Loomer, 21 Conn., p. 245.

Treatment 2103. A carrier of persons for reward must give of passongers. to passengers all such accommodations as are usual

and reasonable, and must treat them with civility, and give them a reasonable degree of attention.

NOTE.-—“Passengers must have usual and reasonable accommodations."'--Story on Bailm., Sec. 597; Ang. on Carr, Sec. 533. " And be treated civilly.”—Story on Contracts, Sec. 796b; Chamberlain vs. Chandler, 3 Mason, p. 242. And have reasonable attention." See Hall vs. Conn. Steamboat Co., 13 Conn., p. 319. The difference between “the degree of responsibility assumed by carriers of goods (* Carriers of Property,' see next Chapter of this Title) and carriers of passengers" is fully discussed in Red. Carr., etc., Part III, Chap. 1, Sec. 345, et seq., and notes. Railroads, as carriers, are particularly referred to therein.

Rate of spoed and delays.

2104. A carrier of persons for reward must travel at a reasonable rate of speed, and without any unreasonable delay, or deviation from his proper route.

NOTE.-If injury occurs from furious driving, the proprietor is responsible.--Stokes vs. Saltonstall, 13 Peters U. S. R., p. 181; Gough vs. Bryan, 5 Dowl. P. C., p. 765; Angell on Carr., Sec. 543. This, as a general rule, will apply equally to other kinds of carriers of passengers, as by boats and cars.

If in racing a passenger is hurt, the proprietor is responsible.-Angell Carr., Sec. 545. Is not responsible for an inevitable delay.-Red. on Carr., etc., Sec. 29; Gifford vs. Railw. Co., 7 Rich., p. 409; Denny vs. N. Y. Cent. Railw., 13 Gray, p. 481.







SECTION 2110. Freight, consignor, etc., what.

2110. Property carried is called freight; the Freight. reward, if any, to be paid for its carriage is called etc., what. freightage; the person who delivers the freight to the carrier is called the consignor; and the person to whom it is to be delivered is called the consignee.

NOTE.—This section pertains to definitions simply. The use of the words "freight” and “freightage” are here proper, whereas such has not been the case. See note to Sec. 2661, post.



SECTION 2114. Care and diligence required of carriers.

2115. Carrier to obey directions.
2116. Conflict of orders.
2117. Stowage, deviation, etc.
2118. Delivery of freight.
2119. Place of delivery.
2120. Obligations of carrier when freight is not delivered to

2121. How carrier may terminate his liability.
2122. When consignee cannot be found.

2-vol. i.

Care and
of carriers.

2114. A carrier of property for reward must use at least ordinary care and diligence in the performance of all his duties. A carrier without reward must use at least slight care and diligence.

NOTE.-The care which bailees are required to bestow on bailments is fully discussed in notes to Titles III, IV, and V of this Part, ante, and the inere custody creates a bailment in the carrier which requires of him the same care required of a bailee for compensation.-Red. Carr., etc., Sec. 3, Chap. 1, Part I, and cases cited in Note 1; Cairns vs. Robins, 8 M. & W., p. 258, et al. See note to Secs. 2085 and 2100, ante. See, also, “ Carriers Without Reward,” note to Sec. 2089, ante.

to oboy

2115. A carrier must comply with the directions of the consignor or consignee to the same extent that an employé is bound to comply with those of his employer.

NOTE.--Johnson vs. Hudson River R. R., 31 Barb., p. 196; Ackley vs. Kellogg, 8 Cow., p. 223; see, also, Angell on Car., Sec. 213. “A common carrier, expressly directed to carry goods delivered to him in a particular manner and position, is bound to carry them in that manner and position," otherwise be is responsible therefor. See, also, Sec. 1981 and note, ante. “Employé must obey employer.” Special directions regarding delivery of goods must be followed.-Red. on Car., etc., Sec. 186. Unless reasonably impracticable, carrier bound to follow instructions of owner or

agent. -Red. on Car., etc., Sec. 34. 2116. When the directions of a consignor and consignee are conflicting, the carrier must comply with those of the consignor in respect to all matters except the delivery of the freight, as to which he must comply with the directions of the consignee, unless the consignor has specially forbidden the carrier to receive orders from the consignee inconsistent with his own.

NOTE.-Carrier must comply with directions of consignee, when.- Bartlett vs. London and N. W. Railway Co., 7 H. & N., p. 400; Sweet vs. Barney, 23 N. Y., p. 335. Unless consignor forbids him from obeying orders of consignee inconsistent with his.-See Tooker vs. Gormer, 2 Hilt., p. 71.

Conflict of orders,

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »