Morning journal and courier., 1881-01-04
Tuesday Morning, Jan. 4, 1881.
LAW FOR TRAVELLERS IN PALACE
 

Three decisions have been given which seem to settle that railroad companies on whose lines drawing room and sleeping cars
 belonging to other companies are used are | responsible for damages received by passen-
 gers in such cars. Three courts-the Massa-
 chusetts Supreme Court, the New York Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme | Court-have agreed that an injured passen- ger may sue the railroad company, and that
 any contract which that company may have
 made with Pullman or Wagner to cooperate 1 in the service is private matter with which
 the passenger has no concern.
 In the Massachusetts case, while the trav- eler was at dinner at stopping place, the
 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 lawful In the New
 York case MT. Thorpe took train of the
 Central railroad to ride from Syracuse to
 Auburn. There were two ordinary cars on
 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 because 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 defence made was that the porter
 Ua nrnn1nyyad hxrt tba of room cars and that the railroad company was not responsible for his misbehavior. But the Court of Appeals said, in effect that rail road company makes the porter it's servant by adopting the drawing room car for carry ing it's passengers, and is responsible for his acts toward passengers. Ordinary travellers are not expected to distinguish between en- ployes of the two corporations, or to know what special arrangements exist between them
 In the case just decided by the United States Supreme Court, the traveller was tick eted from Chicago to Philadelphia, starting at night and occupying 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 chat ting the upper berth of the section fell, struck the visitor on the head, and produced serious and permanent injury of the brain. The su- prenle Court says that he was warranted in suing the railroad company directly. A rail- road company is responsible for injuries re- ceived by passengers which might have been avoided by the use, on the part of the con- 1 pany, of the highest degree of vigilance and | skill and, in particular, for an injury attrib- 1 ntable to weakness or defect in the car it. l self, as when berth which ought toestay up | falls without warning. A railroad company | cannot make use of the cars of Pullman and l Wagner without making the same examina- | ion of them or taking the same responsibili- | y in regard to their condition as is required | n respect to the company's ordinary passen- ger cars. The law will not permit railroad ! company, thrugh any device or arrangement l with sleeping-car company whose cars are | lsed as part of the train, to throw the duty | ,f providing proper means for the safe con- ,eyance of passengers upon the latter. The | awyers for the company endeavored to make | point out of the circumstance that the pas enger was not riding in his own seat but | lad temporarily visited another car, but the l ourt said this made no difference.
 As the New York Tribune says: ''The pub | ic have been accustomed to buy tickets for ravel from the agent of the railroad compa- " and tickets for berths or chairs from the | gent of the Pullman or Wagner company, without being really aware Shat there were wo distinct corporations, one owning the rack, the locomotive and the baggage and reight cars, and employing the engineer, 'rakemen: etc.; the other owning the draw ng-room or sleeping-car, and employing its conductor and porter. But whichever com 'any the passenger has sued, for lost bag age or personal injury, he has generally ,een told that he should have sued the 'ther." The three decisions quoted above 'ughtto and probably will greatly simplify he problem of getting damages for injury I IT loss of property in drawing room or sleep ng cars.