Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-11-21
RIGHTS OF RAILROAD PASSEN.
GERS.
An Interesting Case.


The recent experiences Of Mr.. Flexman, of
Illinois, though uncomfortable to him, have
ELECTED decision which will be read with salts
faction by the average citizen about to trust
himself to the chances of railroad trip Mr.
FleXman bought a ticket from Hoopeston to
Milford. entered car, secured an entire seat.
stretched himself comfortably therein, and
slept. On reaching Milford behold! his watch
was gone from his pocket-stolen during his
nap as he believed and said to the conductor
The conductor seems to have taken his COM
plant matter of course and readily gave
him leave to continue in the train till it
should reach Watseka, a station beyond in
order that he might seek for the missing watch
fellow-passenger assisted in the search and
conversation naturally arose between the two,
the volunteer inquiring of Mr.. Flexman: "Who
has the watch, do you Think" THAT fellow"
answered Mr.. Flexman. pointing to brakeman
THIS brakeman, overhearing the charge, and dis
daning to plead mot guilty in words, forth
with knocked Mr.. Flexman over the head with
his railroad lantern. From this point we hear
no more of the lost watch; the passengers
energies were at once detected into a law suit>
against the company for it's servants assault
upon him. 80.
To this suit the company made two answers:
l. That Mr.. Flexman was passenger to Milford
only; on his way thence to Watseka, as he was
riding free" he had not the rights of pas
senger, but rode at his own risk. But the court
said that if the conductor had demanded fare
1t would probably have been paid, and as it was
not it was waived One who takes passage
avowedly as Iare-paying passenger does not
lose his rights as such because the cOnduc-
tor omts or thinks it not best for special
reasons to require him to pay. q That the
brakeman was not acting in obedience to any
orders or In performance of any duties, but
Hung the lantern as a voluntary act of spite
wholly outside his employment The court said
that II conductor or brakeman assaults
stranger without motive in his duties for doing
so, the company is not liable; the man himself
must be sued. But its passengers a rail-
road company owes a duty of protection. 1t
has undertaken to carry them safely and is
bound to make judcious arrangements that
they shall not be assaulted on the way To
keep the peace in the car is one of the duties of
the company, and If the peace is broken, espe-
cialiy by employees through want of iudicious
regulation, the company may reasonably be
asked TO pay damages.
This doctrine of a passengers right to protec-
ton, though of recent rise, is developing into
practical Importance. Before long, perhaps,
when gang of robbers in disguise take passage
on western train, ride quietly to a quiet spot, !
and there Ego through" the cars; for the ysau..9
a0les OF the passengers, We shall hear Of some 4
OF the victims inquiring whether the company
was not bound to protect them, or at least to
try; and If the courts shall answer Yes, western
trains Will soon run under Drawer conductors
and better-armed brakemen than some Of them
carry aC present. passengers nave asked
such questions quite successfully in
some instances. deck passenger on
the Ben Franklin was knocked down,
destroying an eye, by the clerk of the boat, to
punish some attempt he was supposed to have
made to avoid paying fare. A cabin passenger
on the Eastern Queen was brutally beaten by
the steward and walters because of their sus-
piclon that he was taking supper without pay
ing. passenger on the Grand Trunk railroad,
who averred that he had given his ticket to the
brakeman, was beaten by that official, as his
best mode OF showing that he had not received
it. In all these instances, and many others in
vovlng the same principle, the courts have said
that carrier of passengers may not be liable
for assaults by entire strangers. but is bound to
protect, or at least make arrangements and eff
forts to protect, those whom he promises to
carry safely from maltreatment by employees.
Witness also noted the Wisconsin kissing case.
The conductor was so overcome by the charms
of pretty lady school teacher who was apassen-
ger on his train that he took seat by her and
after some attentions, which she plainly told
him were unwelcOme, kissed her ui ct arms five
or SIX times. In her suit against the company,
their lawyer challenged the court to find any
thing in the printed instructions issued to con-
ductors making it part of their duty to kiss
lady passengers But the court said in effect
that the maxim kissing goes by favor is
greatly respected in the law, and railroad COM
panies are bound to see that it is respected by
conductors and brakemen. And the Jury
awarded 81 600 damages.