The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1881-02-05
The Supreme court on Palace Cars.

ln6 SuDTemO OUuEb Ou dAdC0 yArs.
CoNCURRING decisions of the Su.
preme Court at Washington, the New
York Court of Appeals and the Massa-
chusetts Supreme Court ought to suffice
to settle the law for the whole country.
at least where no reasons for VARYING
the rule in different localities exist
Such decisions have now been rendered
adverse to the device of the railroad and
drawing-room companies for escspino
liability to injured passengers. The pub.
lie have been accustomed to buy tickets
for travel from the agent of the railroad
company, and tickets for berths or chairs
from the agent of the Pullman or Wac
ner companies, without being really
aware that there were two distinct cor
porations, one owning the track, the To-
connective and the baggage and freight
cars, and employing the engineer,
brakemen, etc.; the other owning the
drawing-room or sleeping-car, and en-
ploying its conductor and porter. But
whichever company the passenger has
sued, for lost baggage or personal in.
jury, he has generally been told that he
should have sued the other. Three
courts have now agreed that he may sue
the railroad company, and that any
contract which that company may have
made with Pullman or Wagner to CO.
operate in the service is private mat
ter with which the passenger has no
concern.
The Massachusetts case was decided
in 1873. While the traveller was at din
ner at a stopping-place, the Wagner car
in which he was riding was changed for
another; the employees shifted the hand
baggage, and one valise was lost or
stolen. The passenger made his claim
against the railroad company, and the
Massachusetts court pronounced it law
full. In the New York case, which was
decided in 1879, Mr.. Thorpe took a
train of the Central Railroad to ride
from Syracuse to Auburn. There were
two ordinary cars in the trsin, and his
preference was to ride in ore of these;
but they were crowded. He, therefore,
nobody Directing, went forward into the
drawingroom 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 we're full, etc.
Thereupon the porter of the drawing
room car elected him; OF endeavored to
do so, by force. For this the passenger
sued the railroad company. The only
defense made was that the porter was
employed by the ownersof the drawing
room cars and that therailroad compa-
ny was not responsible for his misbe-
havior. But the Court of Appeals said,
in effect, that a railroad makes
the porter its servant by adopting the
drawingroom car for carrying its pas
sengers, 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 oc-
cupying sleeping-car berth. Next
morning he met an acquaintance who
had berth in another car, and he went
into that car for conversation. AS they
sat chatting the upper berth of the sec
Ulou lell IL SJTuCk Cne VlSltOr Oh JHo
head and produced serious and perma-
nent injury of the brain. The Supreme
Court says that he was warranted in
suing the railroad company directly. A
railroad company is responsible for in
juries received by passengers which
might have been avoided by the use, on
the part of the company, of the highest
degree of vigilance and skill, and, in
particular, for an injury attributable to
weakness or defect in the car itself, as
when a berth, which ought to stay up,
falls without warning. A railroad com
pany can not make use of the cars of
Pullman or Wagner without making the
same examination of them, or taking the
same responsibility in regard to their
condition, as is required in respect to
the company's ordinary passenger cars.
The law will not permit railroad COM
pany, through any device or arrange
ment with sleeping car company whose
cars are used as part of the train, to
throw the duty of providing proper
means for the safe conveyance of pas
sengers upon the latter. The lawyers
for the company endeavor to make
point out of the circumstance that the
passenger was not riding in his own seat,
but had temporarily visited another car;
but the Court said this made no sort of
difference.-Nea0 York Tribune.