The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-05-25
~ YOU'RE ROBBED IN A SLEEPER.
Company Not an Insurer, but Liable IL
1t Failed to Keep Good Watch.

Richard W. Bates took a Wagner sleeping
car at Chicago over the Michigan Central for
Fall River. He put his money In the fob pocket
OF his trousers. securing 1t with q safety pin.
Getting into his berth he laid the trousers be-
tween the mattress and the wall. He lett his
berth and his trousers once In the night. The
only persons he saw at the time were a colored
porter at each end Of the car. At Fall River he
found that his money was gone. A wad OF
tissue paper had been pinned In where the
money had been. He sued DR.. W. s. Webb as
President Of tho Wagner Car Company and
obtained judgment in the City Court for
$l.250. but the General Term Of that court dis
missed the case on appeal. The action was
then carried to the Appellate Term. Tho de-
cision. which was handed down yesterday. Is
written by Justice Leventritt. with Justices
Magician and Freedman concurring. III says;
the baggage. money or other personal effects
OF q passenger. and courts have almost upiyer-
sally refused to impose upon them the abso,
common carriers OF goods. Though the con-
trary doctrine. imposing this onerons common
that It fails to recognize that the Introduction
OF this modern convenience oil travel has Gre
s seers novel Sn EEe,atlons 70 between NV soS GapFler lava aMa S ana
which. were they disregarded for the purpose
Of enforcing that, rigorous oblieation.; would
The accommodation furnished on 9 sleep
ing car Ia unlike that provided by an innkeeper.
Not only does the arrangement OF. the car for
bid absolute privacy and security. put the COM
pany cannot exclude persons not In It's employ
from using the common passaReway and inter.
fering to some extent with the passengers. 1t
must admit the employees Of the Tailroad COM
pany to collect fares and control the move
ments OF the train and it cannot prevent eject
ment for non-payment OF fares.
- While the law. however. does not make q
sleeping cor company insurer OF the effects OF
OCCUPANTS OF it's berths. II does not. absolve, 10
from liability. But the ground oil, this liability
rests simply and solely in negligence. The
very powerlessness of the passenger and the
impossibility OF, his retaining control Of, his
asleep. imposes a duty OF active watchtulness
on the car proprietor. for the violation OF which
the law will compel him to respond In dam
ages,
the implied invitation to sleep. and. reason
ably. the implied agreement to guard property
from depredations by theft by the exercise OF q
degree OF vigilance commensurate with, the
danger to which the passenger Is exposed. A
sleeping car company is bound to maintain .
reasonable watch during the. night while the
passenger is asleep. and 1t Is. bound 80 to man
age its car as not unreasonably to expose his
property to an unusual risk OF loss by thieves
or otherwise"
But the court holds that the measure OF dam
ages Is not the amount OF money that the pas
senger lost. but such sum as he might have
been expected 7? carry, IL he carried IT and lost
1t. in view Of his station In life the length.
duration and purposes OF the journey and the
probable, contingencies that might be expected
to arise during the journey. The court orders
O new trial. at which the damages must be
proved along this line.