Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-10-14
COURT DECISIONS.
DIGESTED BY w. B. MARTIN
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
vgRcINiAN-PILOr.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided
Which Are of Interest to.
Our People.
C. OF c. RY. CO. v. LIPPMAN.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
June 5th, 1900.

Supreme Court of Georgia.
June 5th, 1900
y CARRIER OF PASSENGERS,
WHETHER ON PASSENGER OR
FREIGHT TRAINS. IS BOUND BY
THE SAME STANDARD OF EX-
EXTRAORDINARILY DILIGENCE TO
PROTECT HIM. WHAT WILL
AMOUNT TO SUCH DILIGENCE
VARIES WITH THE CHARACTER
OF THE TRAIN.
~ CONTRACT THAT THE COM
PANY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE
FOR INJURIES TO ~ PASSENGER
ON y FREIGHT TRAIN is VOID.
Lippman sued the company for dam
ages incurred by him by being thrown
down by sudden jerk of Il freight
train on which he was n passenger.
His ticket provided that the company
should not be liable for any injuries
done him while passenger on
freight train. From a judgment for
$1,000 in his favor the company APP
pealed
The court says:
1t is complained that the court erred
in charging the jury that lit is extra
ordinary diligence to which the court
especially directs your attention, be-
cause the railroad companies are
bound to use extraordinary diligence
towards the safety OF Il person travel
ing upon their cars. Regardless of the
mode of conveyance, Il common carrier
in each case is bound to the exercise
of extraordinary care and diligence to-
wards the conveyance of passengers.
The specific error alleged is that the
charge ignored the written contract,
and held defendant to extraordinary
diligence, though the plaintiff had con-
tracted in writing that he would not
hold the company liable for personal
injuries received while he was using
the freight train We see no error in
this instruction to the jury. a car
rier of passengers is bound to extra
ordinary diligence, on behalf OF him
self and his agents. to protect the, lives
and persons of his passengers. We
have endeavored to show that he could
not by express contract waive this OBJ
legation which the law puts upon him.
il the railroad company receives pas
senger on one of its freight trains, the
character of the train upon which he is
received does not fix it's liability, but
the relation of the carrier and passen-
ger establishes it,
In the case of Ball V. Mabry. Of Ga.
7S2. this court ruled that the degree of
diligence due from n common carrier
to a passenger is extraordinary, no
matter what means of conveyance may
be employed, and that this standard of
diligence applies as well where the pas
senger is carried upon n freight train
as 1t does where he is carried upon a
passenger train; and, further, that a
passenger who voluntarily takes pas
sage on freight train takes the risk
of the usual and necessary jolts and
jars which happen in the making up
and running Of such train; but. when
a carrier takes passenger on u freight
train. he must use extraordinary care
in preventing unusual and unnecessary
| jolts ad jars, so as to protect the pas
| senger just as he is required to do to
prevent any jolt or jar on a passenger
| train which would be likely to injure
| the passenger.
This being true, If the carrier could
not waive his negligence in the one
| case. where the passenger is received
| on regular passenger train, he could
not in the other case, where the pas
senger is received on a freight train
| We have given to the principles Of law
| involved in this case careful consider
alton. and, in our opinion, they were
properly stated by the trial judge in
his instructions to the jury, and. as
there was evidence sufficient to sustain
the verdict which they rendered. the
court did not err in overruling the mo-
ton for n new trial. Judgment af-
firnc1