New-York tribune., 1878-06-25
SrREEEcAR RORBhRLES.

Some victim of n street-car robbery will do
well to try the experiment of suing the com
pany, to test whether they may not be liable
for his loss. During a few years past the
steam railroad companies have been subjected
20 several such suits, and the decisions are
omte encouraging to passengers. The law
seems established that a railroad company IL
under obligation to employ the utmost care
and vigilance, and make the best arrange
ments possible to carry their passengers
safely, and to protect them from violence and
robbery from other persons who may be pass
engers on the train. The company Is not LA
ble for all acts of d.sorderly passengers, but
II il bound TO make wise regulations and good
arrangements for preserving order. during the
Journey, among those whom it undertakes to
carry. and must pay damages if It's conductor
and servants do not exert themselves properly
and efficiently to enforce these regulations
when an occasion arises. A peaceablc, orderly
passenger has a right to expect that the com
pany will not receive, or will put of, passen-
gers who are turbulent. Mrs. Kinds, III
PENNSYLVANIA case was injured in fight
among a party of rowdics, who rushed by
sheer violence, without leave of ticket agent
or conductor into the car where she was;
and the company defended her suit success
fully on the ground that these rowdies were
not passengers, and were not admitted voIun-
tariy, but forced their way into the train
But in q Connecticut case, Flint, passenger
by the New London route between New York
and Boston, found, when on board the boat
that ne WAS in company with detachment of
drunken, rIotous soldiers, whom the company
was carrying as passengers. Among these
there arose great quarrellng, upToar and fight
ing, which the officers of the boat made no
decided effort to quell. In the course Of it
one Of the soldiers dropped his gun. 1t was
discharged by striking the floor, aud Flint
was shot in the foot He sued the company
for damages. The judge told the jury that
the rule of law for the case was that the COM
pany was bound to exercise the utmost vigi-
lance and care in maintaining order, and
guarding the passengers against any violence
which might reasonably be anticipated, in
view OF all the circumstances and of the num-
Der and character of the persons on board.
And the jury awarded $4,000. In recent
Mississippi case, four or five drunken scamps,
travelling in the cars, despOiled a peaccable
passenger near them of his hat. He appealed
TO the conductor, who demonstrated, where
upon the rowdies commenced fight. The
conductor, crying, "Gentlemen, for Gods
4" sake, don't get me into trOubleW precipItately
abandoned the scene, and left the assailed
passenger to his fate. The result was he was
severely injured. He sued for damages, and got
Sc. 900. The Court held that railroad company
has full power to put disorderly passengers off
the cars, and is bound TO exercise this power
for the protection of quiet and orderly ones,
and said that $4,000 was not too much dam
ages where the conductor 80 shamefully neg
lected his duty. But if no had behaved like
man-had stopped the cars, called the
brakemen and other passengers to assist him,
and made the best attempt in hIs power to
put the disturbers of-then, even If he had
not succeeded in protecting the passenger
from all injury, the company would not have
been liable.
These cases are of quite recent occurrence,
and have been strongly resisted by the COM
panies as introducing novel element in their
responsibility. and extending their liability
beyond the older precedents But the courts
appear agreed upon the doctrine. And there
seems no reason why it should not be ex-
tended, with Just notifications, TO street
car companies Decisions which have been
made show that this will be done whenever q
proper case arises. There was Mrs. Putnam's
suit against the Seventh Avenue Railroad
Company for allowing her husband to be