New-York tribune., 1879-03-06
pfLAcEclR P5S>ANGERv mems

P4LACE-C1R P5SNhNGERI RIGHTS
The courts of justice do not seem to accord
ready approval to thc ingcniou, device of the
railroad and drawing-r0Om car companies for
letting their carriers liability toward pas
,engcrs fall to the ground between the two.
II Is well understood that the "palace,' the
" drawing-room,n aud the sleeping" ears
do not as a general thing belong to the rail
road companies over whose roads they run.
but are owned by the Pullman and Wagner car
companies The railroad company sells tickets
to passengers, and provides ordinary cars. 1t
also gives the corporation owning the extra ear
leave to hitch 1t to the train, and sell seats or
berths in 1t to whOsOcyer wishes extra accom-
modations at an additional charge. One effect
of this arrangement seems to have been to
make shuttlecocks of plaintiffs. If traveller,
injured or bcIeit of baggage. sued the paiace
ear company lie WAS To be told they were not
carriers; they did not engage for his safe
Journey all they promised was to let him
well-cushioned chair, or berth with
an undivided interest in washstand,
and this they had faithfully done.
II he sued the railroad company
he was to he told We agreed to carry You,
but YOU did not go in our cars you chose 10
md. in vehicle for which we are not re-
sponsble.
In "A Massachusetts, case, decided last Sum-
mer, san Francisco passenger over the Lake
Shore Road bought sleeping-car ticket at
Cleveland for II berth in the car " China"
At Toledo, he left the car for dinner. but
first asked IN employG in the ear if he should
leave his baggage, and would it be safe. The
cmployG answered yes. But when the traveller
returned, the China had been switched OFF, and
the hand baggage OF the passengers carried into
another ear, which had been substituted for
if. In this transfer this plsscnger5 yanse was
lost; he could never get any account OF it
and he sued, not the Wagner Car Company
who owned the China, but the Lake Shore
Company. Tney were for referring him to
the owners of the China; but the Court de-
cided against the defence. The travellers
contract for transportation being with the
Lake Shore Company. the fact that they had
priy,te arrangements with another corpora
ton ~ To the terms for drawing u particular
car. in which the traveller was not interested
or concerned, made no difference in his right
to sue them for negligent loss of his baggage.
I'm n very recent case in Ohio the same
question arose as to personal injury. The
traveller in a Sleeping-car had his head bruised
by the porter letting the upper berth fall upon
il AS he was arranging the ear for the night.
The blow affected the spine, and partial par
alysis resulted. The injured person sued the
carrying company, which sought to throw the
responsibility on the sleeping-car owners.
And this case seems stronger than tho other.
for the negligence was in the manipulation of
the berths, and had no direct relation to the
transportation which the railroad company had
undertaken. But the Court held that the case
could not be shifted upon the other corpora
ton. The railroad company was responsible to
travellers for its whole train. for all cars alike
its contract with the sleeping-car company waA