Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-04-16

"a SLEEPING CAR COMPANY MUST
SECURE EFFICIENT EMPLOYEES,
TO PROTECT PROPERTY OF PAS
SENGERS FROM THIEVES.
"a SLEEPING CAR COMPANY IS IL
ABLE FOR PROPERTY STOLEN
FROM ~ PASSENGER AT NIGHT,
WHILE ASLEEP, IL II DID NOT
KEEP 4 CONTINUOUS AND ACT
I'VE WATCH. TO SECURE SAFETY
OF TIE PROPERTY.
THE ACT OF a PASSENGER IN
PUTTING y RING IN HIS POCKET
BOOK WHILE HE SLEPT IS NOT
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.
This was suit by Adams against the
pNmau Palace Car Company for the
Jess OF n pocket book containing $50
and u diamond ring.
The plaintiff and Il friend, Alcom,
were passengers on sleeping car of
defendant. ana plaintiff paid So for an
upper berth for himself and friend.
Thc plaintiff placed his pocket-book In
the inside pocket of his vest, put the
vest in Il hammock which was swing
ing on the inside OF the berth. and went
to seep. Ills friend awalled him
tie next mnrning afLer daylight and
the berth on top of the cover. His
watch was in the vest, but his pocket
book was gone. and was never re-
covered. The ring he had put in the
pociSct-boUl1 because the setting was
loose. and it was unsafe to wear. AL
com testified that he was on the inside
OF thc berth, and that as he could not
sleep he got mp about midnight. dressed
ana walked UP ana down the aisle for
awhile, aS there was no seat for him.
and afterwards went into another car
until morning; that when he got up his
coat was in the hammock under plain
tins vest ana he took it out with his
right hand. holding the vest with his
lett while he drew out the coat; that
the porter was citing down, asleep:
That hc did not see any one awake in
The car. and il the porter was awake
he had his eyes closed; that he returned
To the sleeper after daylight and woke
the plaintiff, but did not notice the
vest rhe conductor testified that he
kept careful watch until 3 o'clock in
the morning, and then walked the pOr-
ter. The porter testified that he had
Kept watch from o'clock on. and
when the car stopped al Mobile had
gone to the end Of the car 10 receive
passengers; that he did not lock the
door ut the front end of the car. it
being the duty of the porter on the
from; car to do this. ana that this por-
t. was in his place. The porter did
not know or remember anything about
Alrom getting up and going into the
other car. There was n Judgment for
pl1ir;.if. and defendant appealed
The court says:
In Lewis y. Car Co., 1i3 Mass 2G7 II
is said: "a sleeping car company holds
itself out To the world as furnishing
safe and comfortable cars. ana when
it sells q ticket. IT impliedy STIMULATES
M
for, ana make use Of it's cars for
sleeping, all parties knowing that. dur
ms the greater part of the night the
p.ss cngcr will he asleep. powerless 10
protect himself or to guard his pro-
periS. lie cannot, like the guest at
against danger He has no right to
take any such Sters to protect himself
in n sleeping car but, by the necessity
OF the case, is dependent upei4-t4iel
owners and officers of the car 10 guard
h'm ana Inc property he has with him
from danger of thieves and otherwise.
FAe law RAISES the duty on tic part
Of he company to afford him protec-
ton. While it is not liable ne; n com
mon carrior on as an inkceDcr, vet it is
its duty to use reasonable care to guard
me passengers from theft; ana if.
through want of such care. the per
snu&i effects of passenger such aa
stolen the company is liable for it.
e,Such q rule is required by public pol
icy; and by The true interests of both
tn passenger and the car company.
ana the decided weight OF authority
supports IT,"
The Liability Of the company i'm such
cases. /, has also been held. does not
include anything except the clothing
ornaments ana such articles as are
usually carried by travellers; in their
hands together with Il sum of money
reasonably sufficient for the eypensns
OF the journey in which one is engaged
There was no error in refusing tho
general charge for the defendant as
from all the evidence the jury were
authorized 10 draw an Inference nm.
favorable 10 the defendant. Hasidcs
the porter testified that he loft the car
a Mobile, aud during his absence i, is
not SHOWN thai ans one was on watch
inside tho car. The Watching to secure
safety OF the passengers in the night
tine should I've continuous ana active
Charge % was improper instruction
Ihc proposition assorted is, If one wears
n ring on sleeper which he had
heen accustomed Ia wearing on his fin
ger. and should take II off at night
ana put ii in his pocket book. and The
book containing the ring should bo
stolen from his berth. that this would
pc coniributory negligence on his part. |
UiSeni liinS him to recover although
me thest occurred from the negligence
OF the oeiandant,-a proposition finding |
no support i'm laW-or reason.
me Judgment was reversed for the
error ~ me court in not nstructing the |
july 'hat me value Of the diamond ring
could not he recovered as 1t was not in
condition to be worn.
-