Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1881-01-27
The Supreme court on Palace Cars.

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 escaping
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 Wag-
ner companies, without being really
aware that there were two distinct cor
porations, one owning the track, the To-
cOmotive 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 a 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 stQpping-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, a Mr.. Thorpe took a
train of the Central Railroad to ride
from Syracuse to Auburn. There were
two ordinary cars in the train, and his
preference was to ride in one of these;
but they were crowded. He, therefore,
nobody objecting, went forward into the
drawing,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 the 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-
ny was not responsible for his misbe-
havior. But the Court of Appeals said,
in effect, that a railroad company makes
the porter its servant by adopting. the
drawing room 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
was ticketed from Chicago to
Philadelphia, starting at night and oc-
a sleeping-car berth, Next |
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
ton fell; it struck the visitor on the
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
for an injury attributable to
or defect in the Car itself, as
when a berth, which ought to stay up,
tails without warning. A railroad com
pany can not make use of the cars of
Pullman or Wagner without making the
same examination ofthem, or taking the
same responsibility in regard to their
as is required in respect to
,he company's ordinary passenger cars.
The law will not permit railroad COM
oany, through any device or arrange
nent with q asleeping. car company whose
,ars are used as q part of the train, to
hrow the duty Of providing proper
means for the safe conveyance Of pas
iengers upon the latter. The lawyers
or the company endeavor to make a
point out of the circumstance that the
passenger was not riding in his own seat,
)ut had temporarily visited another car;
)ut the Court said this made no sort of
Inference. .-NeaO YOrb Tf76sIae.
.l s.. ----------.-~aot q @p------- .,