The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1892-09-24
such injury. L. d N. R. r. d .

ing upon their trains; and it authorizes
such companies to make, and requires
passengers to observe, all rules reason
| ably necessary for the safety of the latter.
\ rule of railroad company recurring
that passengers shall remain in the cars
provided for them, and, conseducntly.
that they shall not ride in an express car,
or other place Of increased danger set
apart for another purpose, is reasonable
| B. 1t is cOntrlbutOry negligence for a
| passenger to ride III an express car in
violation of a known rule of the company.
even with the permission, connivance or
| knowledge of the conductor of the train.
or without his prOtestation against it.
when the conductor is cognizant of the
rule and of it's infraction, if by such
violation of the rule the passenger brings
upon himself injury from which he would
have escaped, notwithstanding that the
negligence of the CONT any produced the
accident had he remained in the passenger
car set apart, and affording space, for his
accommodation.
I. 1t is the duty of the conductor of
| railroad train to enforce a rule of the
company requiring passengers to ride in
| the passenger cars, but the obligation
upon passengers and the protection 70 the
company, Of a rule Of this kind is not
| dependent upon the fidelity of the conduc-
tor or other agent charged with it's er
| forcement
,. Where a passenger who knows of a
| rule requiring him to ride in the passenger
| cars, rides: in IAN express car or other
place on the train which cannot be re-
garded as intended for accommodation of
passengers, but naturally suggests that it
was not intended for them, the burden is
upon him to prove that he was justified
in riding in such prohibited place.
d. Ii a railway company which has
rule prohibiting passengers from riding
IN the express car, or in other cars than
the passenger cars. habitually permits
passengers to ride III the express car. it
will incur the same responsibility to
passengers for injuries received by them,
through the company's negligence, when
riding IN the express car as if they were
in passenger car.
!. Though passenger, who riding in
an express car. receives an injury, knows
at the time that there is reasonable
rule of the company prohibiting his rid
ING there, cannot invoke the mere delin.
quency of the conductor in enforcing the
rule as bar to the company's CT inning
the protection of the rule, still Il company
may by its conduct abandon the rule, or
preclude itself from protection thereun
der. 1t may, by it's conduct, have held
out its employees in control of its trains,
as authorized notwithstanding such a
rule, to consent to plaintiffs riding in an
express car: or its employee may have
been accustomed to allow passengers to
ride in The express car so generally
|
| company must be held to have known of
and acquiesccd in the violation Of the
rule: or there may fave been such con-
tinned and habitUal disregard of he rule
by the employees a. must hay" reason bly,
produced the belief that the company
Ii ct practically abandoned its rule
There must be such contact as il affect
establishes thc rnrcGrroncc of the com
plny in the disregard of the r.gula ION
:. 1t l. error - submit Il case to Jury
upon the theory that the virtue or eff
cheney of rule prohibiting passengers
from riding, i'll express cars is ,nti'ely
dependc"t upon he fidelity of ihe con
ductor or other agent charged with its
cntnrccmc t.
. Where Il party has inflicted an injury
Intentionally. or where it has neen done
through negligence and hence uniutention
ally Il his conduct in doing it has been
wanton OF reckless Of its in furious corse-
Iuences, the cOn'ributory negligence of
the person injured is not defence to an
acton brought by him for such injury
10. The use of the expression gross
negligence" in a charge to a jury does not
Of itself define, nor does it include only,
that extreme degree of negligence which
is wantOn or reckless of its in in ious
consequences, and to which the defense
Of contributory negligence does not OBJ
tain; and can not be held as having teen
intended to submit the ease to a jury for
consideration as one Of that character. and
particularly so where other charges have
recognized contrihutory negligence as
defen c to the action.
II, Exemplary damages can be allowed
in eases of negligence, only where the
Negligence is OF gross and fragrant
character evincing reckless disregard of
human life, or of the safety of persons
expose TO its dangerous eff cts: or there
is that entire want of care which would
raise the presumption of a conscious in
q ference to consequences, or which shows
wantonness. or recklessness. or a grossly
careless diregard of the safety and welfare
of the public or that reckless Indifference
to the rights of others which is equivalent
to an intentional violation of them. AS
"gross negligence is not confined to
this extreme degree of negligence, it is
not proper to charge jury simply that
gross negligence will justify the imposi-
ton of such damages.
II The actual payment of fare is not
essential to the status of passenger on a
railroad train.
10. A person who was injured while in
an express Car of passenger train had, up
t. six weeks prior to the accident out
OF which the action arose, BEEN an
express messenger, and had run on
the same train with the conductor of
the colliding passenger train. but had
left such employment and at the &C
cident was engaged in other bust
ness not connected with the railroad On
boarding the train he went into the pas
senger car. He had funds sufficient to
pay his fare, but the conductor, who,
there was evidence to show, was aware