Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1885-10-29
RIDING ON A FREE PASS.
The Responsibility of Railroad Com
panies for Accidents,
New York Times.

New York Times.
A Hartford, Conn, telegram to the
New York Times says: In Connecti-
cut there has never been a final legal
decision as to the liability of railroad
companies In case of accident to pas
sengers riding on free passes. All of
| these passes have printed indorse-
nent that the person accepting one
: shall assume all risks of accident and
agree that the company shall not be
liable under any circumstances
whether by negligence of its agents
or otherwise, for an injury to the per-
son. The first case brought was some
months ago before Judge Andrews.
OF the superior court, by Edwin P.
Grlswold, administrator, against the
New York and New England railroad.
The plaintiffs ward, Charles p. Girls
void, aged f6 years, was employed by
Mr.. Chlckerlng, the keeper of the sta
ton restaurantin Waterbury, to dis
tribute hand-bills On trains running
into that place, and was given free
pass to ride over the road for that pur-
pose. The proposition to start the
Waterbury restaurant was made to
Mr.. Chickeripg by Mr.. Holbrook,
superintendent of the road, who said
it would be an advantage to the road.
Young Griswold's duties did not re-
quire him to travel as far east of Wat
erbury as PlainvilIe, but he went
there to stay over Sunday with his
mother, and also at other times, and
was passed free without question. On
one visit In July, 1883, while there he
heard of an accident on the road at
Clayton. and went TO see the wreck,
riding IN a baggage car. A collision
occurred and the boy was killed.
Judge Andrews tosnd that the coll
lslon was caused by the gross negli~
gence Of the defendants servants"
and that "Griswold himself was guilty
OF no contributory negligence unless
the law itself imputes such negligence
to him from his riding in the bag
gage car" It appeared that it had
been his habit to ride in that car, and
ne notice had been given him not to
go into II. The court awarded 81, 500
damages, and the railroad company
took an appeal.
The case has just been argued be-
fore the supreme court Of errors. The
plaintiff claliaed that riding in bag.
gage car simply, is not in the law con-
t1lbatOry negligence and will not be
imputed to 8 passenger who occupies
It, when the railroad company per-
mits him TO enter for his journey. The
boy was allowed 10 ride there by the
conductor without warning. It is not
necessary that a passengers fare
should be paid In money to constitute
him passenger for hire. If the COM
pany receives any benefit In connec-
ton with his passage the permission
TO ride is not gratuity In law. But
free pass In the strict sense of the
words-a pure gratuity-does not ex>
empt from liability under the
terms OF the contract. The same con-
siderations Of public policy govern
whether the passenger be one for hire
a gratultOUs passenger or passenger
on pass exempting the company
from liability. The defendants re-
piled that Griswold would not have
been hurt had he been IN one of the
passenger cars, where no one was in
jqred. The baggage car is an unsafe
place to ride in. He was old enough
TO know ia what cars he ought to ride.
He was abusing his privileges in rid
ing on his pass from PlainvJle to
Clayton, as his pass was only issued
for use in his employment. There
was no consideration for his pass as
he was using it. The railroad receiv~
ed no sort Of advantage in his going
to Clayton. He was awaiting him
self of a gift under an express limita-
ton on the extent of the gift. These
are only in brief some of the leading
points in the case. AS esta blishing
precedent the decision of the court
will be of Importance, but it will not
be handed down for several weeks,
and it May be months. as the court
never hurries in reporting it's decis
ions.