Evening journal., 1902-04-25
RESPONSIBILITY FOR BAGGAGE

RESPONSIBILITY FOR BAGGAGE
A case was recently decided by a
Michigan court which will be Of gen.
eral interest to the traveller who takes
baggage with him. The point involved
is whether baggage may be sent on
another train from that which the pas
|senger holding the ticket on which the
baggage Is checked travels. The court
holds that in such an instance the rail-
road company is a gratuitous bailee,and
is therefore only responsible for gross
negligence. In other words the decis-
ion is to the effect that while a rail-
road company is responsible for bag
gage of the person carried on the same
train with him. it is responsible only
for gross negligence If It goes by
another train.
Speaking Of the decision, Case and
Comment says:
In these days when baggage is fire.
Quently sent on a train other than that
on which hepassengerrides 1t is some
what startling to be told In the lam
guage of the court in this case; that
baggage implies a passenger who in
tends TO go upon n train with his bag
gage and receive il upon the arrival
of the train at the end of the journey.
If that was ever true. it has certainly
ceased to be true. for IL is an everyday
occurrence that railroad companies,
either for their own convenience or
for the convenience of passenger by
train. carry his trunk on an earlier or
later train. In fact, their time tables
expressly say that certain trains which
carry passengers will not take baggage,
and that this must go by other trains
The court says that a baggage master
has no authority or right to check
baggage for any other than passen-
ger. and therefore. II the purchaser OF
the ticket had disclosed to the baggage
master the fact that he intended not
to 90 upon the train but to travel by
his private conveyance, "he would
have been refused the check Il is, OF
course. impossible to say that no bag
gage master would ever refuse to check
baggage under such circumstances; but
lit Is not easy TO believe that any bag
gage master. or any railroad official.
would decline TO check a trunk on a
ticket regularly purchased. merely be-
cause he knew the company would
not have to carry its owner also.
The reason OF the matter seems
plain under the customs of modern
transportation. When a person buys
a railroad ticket, by common under
standing It gives him two privileges:
First. to ride as a passenger on a
train; second. to have his baggage
checked and transported To hold that
he must necessarily avail himself of
both privileges in order to have either
does not seem reasonable. The waiver
of one privilege or right under a con-
tract does not imply the waiver Of
another and distinct right or privilege.
The railroad companies will hardly
regard the decision with favor, since
lit would compel them to send the bag
gage Of a passenger on the same train
on which he travels. At times this is
, very inconvenient, and it is the prac-
tice of certain of the companies to
encourage the sending Of baggage
ahead.
The circulars advertising summer
tours state that the baggage will be
called for at the house and forwarded
to the destination on the presentation
of ticket This is done as a matter
Of convenience to both the passenger
and the railroad. and there is little
effort to have passenger and baggag,
go by the same train. In fact a
times We are urged to send our trunks
ahead that they may be at our des
tination on our arrival
Fortunately there are other decision
: which seem to hold a contrary view
] and the opinion of the Michigan caur
need not be taken as final If
should be accepted as good law, j
= would put an unnecessary burden o.
- both passenger and carrier.
q Attorney-General Knox announce
y that after due inquiry 1t has been as