Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1901-11-05
RAILROAD PASSES,
$4,000 Suit for Damages
Against the Maine Central
For Injuries Received While Riding
on Pass, Before Judge Putnam.
Elaborate sricis Presented BY Counsel Gov.
Cieaves' Arsumen. for Road.

most interesting and important ease.
involving the liability Of common ear
ricrs in the Transporting of passengers,
who are travelling on 4 free ticket "
pass. was argued, today. before Judge
Putnam in the United States court.
John Fish Duncan of Cambridge.
Mass. brings suit against me Maine
central Railroad 90. claiming dam
ages of $1,000. for injuries received
while being carried in 1891 as u pas
sen2"r over the Maine Central railroad.
between North conway ana Lancaster.
n. H.
Mr.. Duncan was. al the TIM. riding
on free ticket. issued by IN" Maine
Central Railroad Co. With III" C0ndi-
tion attached to III" ticket that he
should assume All risk Of a,riirns. ANA
that the Railroad should not l." liable
FOX any injury to his person az prop
erty while using such ticket.
The question argued before Judge
Putnam related to III" liability Of the
railroad for damages. under such dir
cumStanccS.
briefs ana Governor Cl.avcE. who ar
gucl the case in behalf ~ tn. Maine
Central I,ailroad cont.nded that ii
was conceded by III" ploadings that AZ
the time OF the alleged injuries the
plaintiff was not Il passenger for hire,
but was riding upon defendants train
on a free ticket, given him at his own
solicitation and as Il pure Gratuity;
th9t one OF the printed conditions at
tached to the ticket was, that the rail
road should not be liable for damages
by reason Of the negligence Of its SER
wants ur agents. and that the plaintif
was bound by the terms OF the contract
which he voluntarily entered into with
the Railroad Co: that having awaited
himself Of such ticket. and Of the privi-
ege ii conferred to secure him a free
passage, be- cannot now repudiate the
cSmtraTst -re- 4rr-ercvf into
Gov. Cleaves argued that a common
carrier of passengers had the lawful
right to contract for exemption from
liability for injuries to a free passen-
ger. when such passenger sOlicits Il
:,ratuitnus carriage. and that such con-
tract i now against law; that there
is 10 rule Of public policy that prevents
ii railroad from attaching reasonable
conditions To a Sratuitous carriage:
and that in addition To carrying 4 pas
stnEer free. the railroad should not be
Geld responsible for injuries resulting
from q want Of care of its servants,
when the contract provides that the
free passenger VIII assume that risk
himself. such was the contract en-
tered into BY the plaintiff, ana con-
tract Of this character. when entered
into freely and understandings by per-
sons competent to contract. should ne
held obliEa tory upon the party.
II was Z contract for free carriage
ara the question was which should
take the risk of accident. the railroad
or the passenger. If there had been no
agreement releasing the railroad from
liability. it would be responsible for the
negligence Of its servants: but by the
contract The railroad is ahSolVed in adj
vance and at the time Of the delivery
of the free ticket. Of all legal RESPONSE
hility for injuries.
The contention here is. that when the
plaintiff solicited and accepted purely
p
PENDANTS railroad train. upon 4 dis
tinct ana written agreement that he
would assume All risk Of accidents
while travelling on such train, it con-
stituted a contract which does not con-
travcne public right or public welfare.
and that such contract should not BE-
declared invalid and Of no binding
force.
Governor Cicaves then reviewed the
decisions of the courts of Maine. Mas
rachusctts. New York and several
other states. arguing that they all sus-
tanned the principle here Contendcd for,
that one who accepts and uses free
pass rs pure gratuity. on condition
that he will assume the risk of per
Sonal injury. must be deemed 10 have
accepted il on such condition and can
not recover.
\ free pass over a railroad. as de-
lined by numerous decisions, means the
privilege Of riding without the pay
n,ent of the customary fare: and many
state courts have held. that under such
eli cumStanceS, a common carrier is
simply in the position of gratuitouS
bailee. and may prescribe as one of the
conditions on which such free passage
is given. that it shall not be held liable
or injuries caused by its servants neg
ligrnce. Such a passenger does not
stand in the same relation 10 the car
rier as one who pays for his trans
And the supreme court OF Maine. IN
4 most learned opinion. has recently
held that one who accepts and uses
, free pass, as 4 pure gratuity. on con-
iit:on that he will assume all risk of
injury. must be deemed to
have accepted II on that condition
whether he reads it or not: and such
. contract is not prohibited by any
rule OF public policy in this state. but
Is cffectual to cXonnrate the carrier
rom liability for the negligence of his
Various decisions of the supreme
curt Of the United states touching
his question We're cited. and Governor
leaves claimed that every decision of
hat tribunal holding that the carrier
,f passengers cannot stipulate FOR eX-
amption from liability for injuries oc-
n stoned by the carriers negligence. is |