The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-02-21
SLEEPING CAR COMPANIES RESPON-
SIBILITIES
IMPORTANT DECISION.

IMPORTANT DECISION.
An action was tried some few weeks ago In the
Marine Court, before Judge JoacnImsen and jury
and fully reported in the HERALD, IN which the
plaintiff, Charles F. Palmeter, sought to recover
the value OF certain property stolen from him
while occupying a sleeping car-the Toedo-be.
longing to the New York and Hudson River Rail.
ROAD Company, during journey from this city to
Chicago, the action being brought against Web
ster Agnew, President OF said company After
hearing testimony and the summing up OF COUNSEL
Mr.. o. S. H. Peck for the paintifi and Mr.. Frank
LOOMS for the defendant, and the Judges charge,
verdict was rendered for the plaintiff The case
was an important one IN a legal aspect, and Judge
Joacnimsen granted q motion for an argument
for new trial. The motion was argued at great
length for and against and yesterday Judge
Joachimsen rendered his decision denying the
motion ior new trial and giving Judgment on
the verdict OF the jury for the plaint The decls.
ion Is a most important one as fixing the RESPONSE
bilities OF sleeping car commissioning them
responsible the safety OF the property OF trav
ellers on their cars.
DECISION.
1t is very clear defendants are not nnkeepers, in.
Surers nor transporters. They engage In o dlffer.
ent business-tnat is they undertake to furnish In
express trains and for Consideration that which
the railroad company does not agree to furnish
sleeping accommodations. In the ordinary TAIL
road car passenger may sleep, but It is at his
own risk. he Is not invited TO and does not pay
his money for sleeping. On the contrary he is the
custodian Of his property and must look out for
Tor sleeping the passenger is not expected to re-
main awake to take care OF himself and of his
property. The defendants do not become insur.
ers, but they are bound protect the plaintiff in
hts sleep. They can, Oh course, protect them.
sse Pullman car as vs. the snsS
or can object to the imprudent manner the
PP%sn Of ss sa sr m ~ and nd
mot agree to the position OF the Court In the lat
her case. as applicable to the present one. No
such facts as appeared in that case bring 1t
within the princpe-respondeat superior. Here
IT ID shown that the parapnernaiia OF me Sleeping
Oar Company indicated their responsibility They
mad . conductor and a porter to watch during the
might 1t Will not be questioned that they were
patrons. me Company sod the h. plaintr some.
;thlng more than The use oil mattress, &c. 1t
would be absurd to call their patented cars-recog.
mixed by statute as sleeping cars-tO be vehicles
IN which sleep, II obtained, would be in more
comfortable position, put at The precise risk or
Aleeplng in the cars furnished by the railroad COM
pany Tor regular iare, and If no watch Is kept, or
fhe watch kept Is SO insufficient that the midnight
spr0wler can approach and steal-that is an lntru-
sion on the rest and comfort OF the passenger
DOR which the company Is liable. ! agree with
Hhe Transportation Company is concerned, that
there ID no liability Tor larceny-they assume no
duty in such respect. The passenger Is bound to
DE awake ana TO protect himself and his property;
nut even the railroad company is bound to protect
3is person from assault; but do hold that from
khe very nature OF their employment IL is the duty
OF the sleeping Car Company to their patrons to
use ordinary care In protecting them while
asleep. They expressly undertake to do that
which the railroad company finds 1t Injudicous to
undertake. The duty or corporation ID TO exor.
else ordinary care IN the selection and employment
OF Its servants, and are liable for the consequences
aurmance Of their duties. (Bowes vs.. Harlem Rail-
road Company, Allen. Justice IN Court Of Appeals.)
There was evidence that the ''Clty OF TOedon was
unmolested during the night. Had Myers, the
porter, been In the car all the night and done his
duty he would have stopped Fleischhauser, the
passenger and inquired why he left his berth twice.
Neither Myers, nor Joy, the conductor, knew
anything OF this occurrence, which 1t was not dis
puted had happened ana which 1t was their duty
to know Of The form Of the special inquiry to the
Jury ts now drawn In question. Objection to form
should hayesbeen made at the trial. IN substance
AZ Is found that Myers did not exercise watch and
care over the persons OF the passengers. am
free to confess thot the question presented Ii one
OF great importance and my decision Is based
b0ley upon the assumption that the contract ana
duty Of the Sleeping Car Company are not That OF
insurers, but one, by reasonable watch, to Pro-
feot passenger IN his person ana his property
about his person during his sleep, protection
which the railroad company as transporters do
che loss BY his own negligence IN undressing
seems TO me TO have been properly left 70 the jury
fAs question OF fact. Motion Tor a new trial on
minutes denied, with $40 costs anG judgment
ordered on verdict Tor the plalntin, with costs and
allowance.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
PETITIONS AND DISCHARGES IN BANKRUPTCY.
John Il. Roger, Samuel Godchault. lsidore
Hersch, Charles M. Nichols, Jr. Thomas G. Nichols