The People's vindicator. [volume] (Natchitoches, La.) 1874-1883, 1881-02-05
The Sunreme Court on Palace Cars.

MANY. and tickets for berthS or chalrs
I'M the agent Of the Pullman or Wag. 80,
r companies, without being really a a.
,are that there were two distinct cor tb'
,rations, one owning tie track, the 10. va ~a
motive and the baggage and freight s su
rs, and employing the engineer, on
'akemen, etc.; the other owning the W "
.awing-room or sleeping-car, and en- az az
owing its conductor and porter. But ~ =,
hichever company the passenger has 70
led, for lost baggage or personal IN "
lry, he has generally been told that ne
,ould have sued the other. Three l.,
ourts have now agreed that he may sue "
le railroad company, and that any :,
Dntract which that company may have ~
,ade with Pullman or Wagner to CO.
perate in the service is private mat
Or with which the passenger has no y
oncern. Il
The Massachusetts case was DECIDED
d 1878. While the traveller was at din "
Ter at a stopping-placc, the Wagner car {;
n which he was riding was changed 1or
mother; the employees shifted the hand
baggage, and one valise was lost or ,
stolen. The passenger made his claim
against the railroad company, ana the
\ Massachusetts court pronounced 1t law
ful. In the New York case, which was
decided in 1879, q Mr.. Thorpe took Q
train of the Central Railroad to ride
from Syracuse to Auburn. There were
two ordinary cars in the train. ana ms
preference was to ride in one OF these;
but they were crowded. He. therefore,
nobody objecting, went forward into the
drswine.room car. When asked to pay
the charge for his seat there he refused;
said that he had come there only BE-
cause the other cars were full, etc.
Thereupon the porter Of the drawing
room car elected him, or endeavored to
do so, by force. For this the passenger
sued tho railroad company. The only
defense made was that the porter WAS
employed by the owners Of the drawing
room cars and that the railroad compa-
nv was not responsible for his misbe'
hsvior. But the Court IT Appeals said,
in effect, that 4 railroad company makes
the porter. its servant by adopting the
drawjne-room car for carrying its pas
senqers, and is responsible for his acts
toward passengers. Ordinary travellers
are not expected to distinguish between
employees Of the two corporations, or to
know what special arrangements exist
; between them.
The United States Supreme Court has
, now. asserted the same principle. The
traveller was ticketed from Chicago to
! Philadelphia, starting at night and &C.
cupying . sleeping.car berth. Next
! morning he met an acquaintance who
q | had q berth in another gar, and he went
+ into that car for conversation. AS they
!. sat chatting the upper berth Of the sec
0 ton fell; It struck the visitor on TN
d head and produced serious and perma
nent injury of the brain. The SUPREME
# Court says that he was warranted Il
I suing the railroad company directly. =
n railroad company is responsible tor 10
y juries received by passengers whic
& might have been avoided by the use, o
al the part of the company, of the highe.
ia |)deqree of vigilance and skill, and, !
at particular. for IN injury attributable :ti,.
weakness or defect in the car itself,
~ when q berth, which ought to stay ~
ed falls without warning. A railroad con
IA pany can not make use Of the cars.
mt Pullman or Wagner without making t!
lit same examination of them, or taking II
n. same responsibility in regard TO tn
&c. condition, ~ Is required in respect
re-. the company's ordinary passenger col
ZEN The law viii not permit : railroad CO..
md pany, through any device or arranl
nj. ment with : sleeping.car company ht
ow cars are used as = part Of the train.
ne. throw the duty Of providing PROF
means for the safe conveyance OF P
sengers upon the latter. The lsMy'
felt for the company endeavor to MAKE
; IL point out Of tho circumstance that
r I passenger was not riding IN his own n
een but had temporarily visited another 9
4 I but the Court said this made no sort
The difference.-New York Tribune.