Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-07-30
RANCHAN V. RUTLAND r. &C
supreme Court of Vermont.
January 10. 1899.

N.\NiiNN '. KU ll-AND *. 90.
Supreme Court of Vermont
January r. 1899.
AT COMMON LAW A COMMON CAR
RlER Is LIABLE TO THE FULL
EXTENT OF A PASSENGERS
Loss OF BAGGAGE.
WHERE THE PURCHASER OF A
TICKET CAN NEITHER READ
NOR WRITE. AND THE TICKET
WAS NOT READ TO HIM. AND HE
DID NOT KNOW IT'S PROVISIONS.
Ills ASSENT TO y PROVISION
LIMITING THE COMPANY'S LA
BlLlrY AS TO LOSS OF BAGGAGE
CANNOT BE PRESUMED.
This was an action against a railroad
company by passenger FOR the loss
OF his baggage. The plaintiff purchased
4 ticket and obtained Il check for his
baggage which he delivered to the COM
r1ny. The baggage was lost. The
ticket contained clause limiting the
Liability of the company for loss of
baggage To wearing apparel. not cX-
ceedins $500 in value. There was a
special verdict showing the plaintiffs
damages We're $l5S. Of which $li3 were
for wearing apparel. The lower court
appealed
The court says:
This attempt of the defendant to
limit its common law liability as
common carrier must be considered
with reference To the other undisputed
facts stated in the exceptions. 1t is
there stated that tho evidence tended to
show that the plaintiff could neither
read nor write; that the tickets were
not read to him by any person: and
that he did not know the provisions of
the tickets. With this testimony in the
case the defendant was not entitled TO
have the court comply with It's four
requests The defendant by it's charter
became common carrier of pdSscn-
gers ana their baggage. subject 10 tho
common law rules in regard to liability
therefor. by nearly universal concur
renee I decisions of courts OF final re-
sort. including the decisions of this
court. such carrier may by contract.
reasonably limi; and vary its common
raw liability, except as to its own nogii-
gcncc. Hut. 1t VIII he held 10 that liza
billy until it establishes that II has
limited ar varied ii by "A contract. cx-
press OF implied, existing between it
and rs passengers. The ordinary pas
senGer ticket does not profess To con-
tain the contract by which the pas
scnEer obtains his right TO carriage
w
IS printed on a passenger ticket has
usually been regarded as a notice by
tho carrier Of lis desire 10 limit or vary
It's common law liability TO affect
such limitation. the carrier must show
That the passenger, when he paid his
money and received the ticket, did II
under such circumstances that he as
scented 10 the conditions named upon
the ticket Whether such assent is cs,
tablishcd depends upon the circl,m
stances of each case Assent will not
b. presumed unless the proposed con-
u!tiOnS ana limitations We're known to
the passengers. and then much viii de-
pend upon whether they are REASONABLE
or unreasonable. AS the defendant
took no exceptions To the charge on the
subjects OF the special findings of the
jury. ii Is To hc presumed tina; the court
stated the law correctly in regard
thereto. anu that the Jury found. "a
the plaintiffs testimony tended TO show.
mat he had no knowledge of the con-
HItionS placed by the defendant upon
ms ticket ut The time he purchased IL.
lie must have hnd Knowledge of them
ut the time he paid his money. When
purchasing his ticket. rhe passenger
Frequently has no opportunity nor time
- examine IL. He has a right to un-
d"rstand. unless directly informed To
the contrary. thai the carriers under
taking has the common law liability.
IL is unreasonable to hold. If the con-
iitions printed on the ticket came 10
his knowledge first after he has en-
tered upon his journey. that he should
ne hoid 10 have assented thereto. The
special verdict does not establish that
che plaintiff had knowledge Of the
conditions printed upon his ticket. and