The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1885-03-27
RAILROAD LIABILITY ON PASSES

On the back of railroad passes is
printed an agreement or stipuia'lon'
which states that the person VINO
accepts the pass expressly agrees 70
relieve the company from any Liability
for personal injury to the holder while
travelling on the pass. In some o'a'e'
this contract is made void by legislative
enactment, but in others the courts
have held that it was valid, and binding
ON the holder. who could not recover
for any damage done him while travei-
ing on the company's road. In New
York the agreement OF the person
accent;ng a mass to assume all risks OF
accident and that the company snail
not be liable for any injury to the person,
is enforced, but a Common fleas
Judge has just made an exception which
should attract the attention OF the rail-
road people. The plaintiff in the case
was injured in the terrible smash-up on
the Hudson River railroad at Spuyten
Devil, three years ago: he held tree
mass over the road, but at Albany
bought a drawingroom car ticket and
was in the drawingroom car at the time
of the collision, when he was severely
injured. He brought suit for damages
and the company setup that the stlpuia-
tlon ON the back of his ticket was bar
to his recovery. The judge held other
wise. in a decision the salient
point of which is worth reproducing
in view of the extent to which
passes are given and used
and also of the fact that the majority OF
those travelling on passes, ride in cars
not belonging to the railroad company,
as was the case. of the New York
plaintiff. The judge says;
The language of the stipulation means
that if the person using the pass accepts
free passage he shall relinquish his
right to compensation for injuries, and
the law of this State holds that free
passage is itself full consideration fol
contract that will discharge a carrier
of passengers from its common law
liability. The pass entitled him to ride
in one of the common cars of the com
pany, but the plaintiff wished accom-
modations of better kind, and there
fore he applied for transportation II
one of the drawing-room cars that form
part of the defendants trains. He
was accepted as passenger In draw
ing-room car and paid for transpor
tation in that car to New York. III the
free pass gave him the right to travel OF
the train it gave him no right TO traYe
ia that car, and it is evident that the
rights and the relations of the parties
were changed by the sale to him of thu
ticket to the drawing room car AS {
passenger for hire, who in bargaining TO
transportation in the drawing room ca
has made no contract that relieved tn
company from its liability for damage
if he were injured through its negli
genee, the plaintiff had the rights tina
the law gives to ordinary passengers
and having paid for the ticket, he is no
to be considered as one who, in consid
Grafton of a free passage, has agreed no
to hold the company liable for injuries
The defendant voluntarily made a new
contract, and cannot now ignore 1t an,
insist that the rights of the parties shal
be measured by contract that was In
tended to operate upon CONDITION o
affairs that it has seen fit to change.
The Court further held that the defenc
of the railway company that if ther
were any liability for damages tn
Wagner Drawing-room Car Compan.
was responsible, was not good, becaus
the latter company could not run it
cars on the road without the consent G
the railway company.
This is one of these eases when a.
honest Interpretation of the law serve
to work wrong and hardship, but a
it simply despoils a railroad compan.
nobody seems to care. In giving q fire.
pass railroad usually receives what
regards as full compensation; it doe
not get return in money, but it has go
or expects to get an equivalent. AT tn
same time, the person acceptin
the pass promises and binds him
self by his signature to tn
agreement, to release the company from
the obligation and responsibility al
taching to a common carrier, SO far a
personal injuries are concerned; he doe
this as return for the courtesy shown
and also as a matter of justice, for it
not the right thing in moral point @
view, to make the carrier pay him TO
injuries received when it is Transporting
him free and at his own request, Oh
conditions which he has agreed to. T
sue under such circumstances seems al
act showing want of gratitude, and lac
of the sense of true right and wrong, an
to recover is certainly to inflict an in
T justice on the carrier.