Arizona weekly journal-miner., 1902-06-04
LIABILITY OF RAILWAY COM
 PAhlES.
Important Decision Rendered in the Circuit Court of Appeals in
 San Francisco.

Judges Gilbert, Ross and Morrow, sitting as the United States circuit court of appeals in San Francisco, have handed down an interesting de- cision as to the rights of widow and minor children to recover damages from railway company for the loss of husband and father through neg ligence on the part of the company, death occurring while the husband and father was travelling on a pass or free ticket.
 The case was tbat of Louise H. Adams and Frank H. Adams against the Northern Pacific Railway com pany for damages. Jay H. Adams was lawyer travelling in Idaho, and in passing from a tourist car to the dining car, the train going unusually fast around a curve, he was thrown from the train and killed. The case was tried in the United States circuit court of Washington and judgment was given in favor of the. widow and minor child for Sl4,000 damages. From the judgment the corporation appealed, one of the grounds being that the decedent was travelling on free ticket, which ticket stipulated that the holder waived all claims on the company for any injury to the person or for any loss or damage to the property of the passenger using the free ticket caused by the negli- gence of agents or otherwise.
 The United States circuit court of appeals asks: Gan this language be considered to relieve the railroad company from liability for the death of a person using such ticket if such death is caused by the negligence of the carrier or its servants? "
 The courts decision continues:
 ''In the first place, if such meaning could be given to the language of the contract the contract would be void as against public policy. 4 mans life is not his own to be disposed of by contract. A man may not barter away his life or his freedom or his substantial rights Chs. Co. vs. Morse, 29 Wall, 245-451) The state has an interest in securing the safety and preserving the lives of its citi- zens. A negligent killing was man slaughter at the common law and in- dictable. In many of our states it Is similarly regarded and severe penal ties imposed therefor. The express permission by the deceased, tbere- fore, that the railroad company might negligently take his life without con sequent liability would have been in violation of both the common and statute law and a void contract.
 But the contract in question does not extend to the death of the party contracting. It is limited to injury to the person and loss of property of that person. Under the statutes of both Idaho and Washington the clause limiting the right of action to circumstances, which would have permitted the deceased to sue for personal injuries in case he survived, Is entirely omitted, and nothing ap- pears elsewhere in the statutes to warrant it's insertion by implication. The omission must, therefore, be coa- sidered as intentional. Under the statutes of Idaho and Washington the plaintiff had a right of action against the defendant railway for the just damage to them resulting from the death of Jay H. Adams, if his death was caused by the negligence of the railroas company. Ia the ah' sence of evidence to tho contrary the law presumes that the dc,ra-'.i 'iiJ exercise reasonable care. JUiyui nj affirmed