The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1866-09-13

/ factory aud that wa done that announce
Incnt Of the station was made sufficiently
/ loud aud distinct for any passenger 10 the
rlt a. hear IT, ifawake. and long enough n
allow them h. got on that u Was his in
/ PRECISION " lac had backed the train to New
/ ton station thefe would have been some
danger 81 collision with the approaching
train, by being out Of time, and that he ~
told MIS- X. aud that on the arrival Of the
train at Newton Station, he did eyeryihsg
that was nsnal aad customary 10 notify pas
sengers Of the arrival at the station and the
witness was not IN the employ OF the com
lauy when his deposition Was taken.
The President 81 the Company testified
that the witness, Lucy, WAS well.known
10 him, and that he was q faithful aud com
petent Officer, attentive ~ bis duties aud ey'
~ regarded a. one Of tie best conductors on
the road aud Judge Watts testified 10 Tie
same effect
The lint error nssigucd il the oyerruling
Of tho demurrer But the gionnds Of de-
muTer set forth are maniiestly nntenable,
and do not appear 10 be- urged here by the
| counsel for the plaiutiil ~ error
The second assignment Is the admission
Of tho testimony Of the witnesses MaXcy
Wansly and Williams, ~ slow that the
conductor of the railroad bad been negli-
gent in calling out tho names of the sta
tions on tho road, at u time prior to that at
which the wrong here complained Of was
done
This assignment Is well taken The qnes-
tion was whether the company, by its agents,
was chargcable with neglect Of duty at the
particular time complained Of by the plain
tit, and II was not competent, upon the IL
sue, 10 show negligence at another time aud
by another agent of the company This is
settled in the case of the Mississippi Central
K H. Va. Miller, Mt last term
The third error assigned Is the instruc-
t0ns given by the court ~ the instance vi
the plnintii thr first of which il in these
words
" II is the clear duty of common carriers
Of passengers, not only 10 call ont the diff
fcront stations at which they arrive and for
which they have passengers, but to see that
the passengers with their baggage are put
oil ut the place Of their destination
The rule thus stated appears to place the
duty of common carriers of passengers upon
the same ground rs that in relation to goods
aud her property delivered TO them But
there is an essential difference between the
duties in the two eases, proceeding from the
difference in the nature Of the objects 10
which the duties of the carrier apply, In
the case of goods and other chattels, the OBJ
ieet il either nanimatc, or without reason
aud volition; is driir0ed to the carrier and is
wholly within his power. II is mainly be-
cause he has absolute control over it, that
he becomes an insurer of it for safe keeping
aud delivery, from which nothing will dis
charge him but casualties by the act Of God
or of the public enemy, or the undue inter
ference of the owner But passengers on II
public conveyance are OF q different nature
They are persons, endowed with yOlltiOn
and capability of rational locOmOton. They
are not deiir0m to the keeping of the CARR
or, but of their own viii, make use of his
vehicle ~ a means of conveyance, and take
their seats for the purpose of being TRAITS
ported from one place t0 another, co.opcrtt-
ing with him iu accomplishing the end of
the undertaking, which is To he safely oar
Trd to u given place, where IL Is to be pre-
suHcd they viii be careful to do what is
necessary on their part to their purpose. In
the case of goods the obligation IL to carry
aud deliver as to passengers, it is simply to
carry, and to allow them sufficient time and
opportunity to leave the vehicle. In the lat
ter case, it is presumed that they are desir-
GUS and ready to quit ut their point of des-
tination; and it is not the duty of tho carri-
or to put them oil; because, rs rational be-
ings. II is to be presumed that they will do
therefore, dcvOlves on the passenger, and IL
is 10 uso reasonable care and diligence to
leave tho vehicle, and To avail himself of the
opportunity offered by the carrier to do so.
Yet ~ passengers must, necessarily, often
travel in such cOHveyanccs MS railroads, to
places whose localities arc entirely unknown
to them, a duty devolyes on the carrier, in
order to afford them an opportunity to de-
part ut their points of destination, To
give notice Of the arrival of the train
ut such places. The mode of performs
ing this duty by railroads, appears TO be well
established by general custom throughout
this country, to Ice announced in II distinct
and audible manner in each ear, So that it
may he heard by all. passengers, the arrival
of the train at each station or fixed place of
departure, and there 10 stop sufficient
length Of time 10 allow the passengers 10 get
OF without danger or injury to their persons
And this proceeds upon the reasonable
ground that they are Nigilaut to do their
part of the undertaking which they set out
Ia accomplish and which is only to be done
by their own exertions All that is required
of the carrier in such eases Is reasonable
warning, and such as may be presumed to
be sufficient TO give notice TO those who are
careful to do their duty. Ii would he NM
reasonable to require personal warning to
require much time to do 80, in trains much
crowded with passengers il would cause
much detention in travelling, which wonld
he a public Inconvenience, and it would be
to impose duty on contractors where there
was long train and many passengers which
it would require an extraordinary memory
to perform properly, and which, therefore,
would be often omitted through mistake on
want OF memory 1t is better TO requiIr
something 10 be done by the passenger, and
all that is required by the prevalent custom
is that he shall use reasonable care ami
vigilance in attending 10 the business he has
IL he fails to do this, he is
with negligence, which viii pre-
clude him of complaining that the carrier
has not done his duty.
The particular question prcseuted III this
instruction, 50 far as We have heen able to
iiud. ha, not been adiudged IN any of the
numerous cases in regard 10 TIE duties and
liabilities ct railroad companies that have
arisen in our sister States and IN England.
l,ut decisions have been made in analogous
eases. founded ON principles which appear
TO be fully applicable to this question.
In Pennsylvania Railroad Company ".
KHsare. ~ Penn. State, Rep. yyl, (aSlodted
hy the supreme Court, y. 296,) it is said
:. We do not think il was the duty of the |
conductor 60 20 through the train and see |
that every person was safely passed out of
the cans Ii was his duty TO stop the train |
loEg 10 enable them to get out, |
without danger 30 their persons or lives and |
IL he did not. he was derelict ~ his duty. I
And in numerous eases. 10 is held that u Is 1
the duty ct the passenger 70 take reasonable |
care In order 10 avoid accidents, aud that he /
cannot rccovcr ii it appears that the injury |