Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-10-23
Cumberland County Rescript.
Edward II. Wood VS.. Maine Central
Railroad COMPANY
BE De Way De Boys a

Railroad Company
Rescript by Whitehouse, J.
1t is settled and familiar law respect
ing public carriers of passengers, that
the existence of the relation of passen-
ger and carrier between the parties en-
title the passenger to have his personal
baggage transported at the same time
without any additional charge for the
freight. No separate. contract is re-
quired for the carriage of more personal
baggage which is accompanied by the
passenger in it's transportation. The
fare for the transportation of the pas
senger includes compensation for the
carriage of the baggage; and with re-
spect to such baggage. the carrier of
passengers incurS the responsibility of
common carriers of merchandise, and
becomes liable as an insurer of the
baggage. unless the passenger accom-
parties it in its transportation or is pre-
vented from so doing by the fault of
the carrier. If therefore THAT which
would have been properly baggage had
it been accompanied by the owner as
a passenger, should by accident or mis-
take be accepted by the carrier for
transportation without being accom-
panied by tie owner. and when he is
not or does not become a passenger. the
carrier would not have it iii the char
acter of baggage, and would not be re-
spensible for it as such. For although
the measure of the liability Of the car
rier of baggage is the same as that of
the common carrier of goods as freight,
the risk Incurred by the carrier in the
two cases is rot always the same.
Where the baggage is accompanied by
the owner, as the carrier has the right
to suppose will be the case, emergen-
ces may arise in which his care and at
tcnticn to it may preserve it from loss:
and whom his journey has been safely
made, the carrier may al once deliver TO
him his baggage.
In the case at bar it satisfactorily APP
pears from all the evidence that the
plaintiffs trunk was received by the
carrier in New Jersey. in the ordinary
way as the personal baggage of Il pas
senger, in the expectation that it would
be accompanied by the owner. 1t is
trle that The plaintiff testifies that he
paid an extra amount to have the
trunk Checked through to WiscasSet,'
but ne Is unable to settle the precise
amount paid for that purpose. and he
recalls no conversation between the
checker and himself tending to show
that the trunk WAS to be forwarded as
freight without the passenger. He re-
ceived only the ordinary check for TIE
transfer of the baggage of passengers
across New and Boston. The conclu-
sion IS Irresistible that when the trunk
was checked at Asbury Park both the
parties understood that it was to go
forward as the baggage of a passenger.
1t IS equally clear that the plaintiff did
not intend to accompany it beyond
Boston, and it is admitted that he did
not in fact accompany it over any part
OF the defendants railroad.
It is accordingly the opinion of the
court that the defendant did not incur
the full responsibility of Il common car
liai of goods. and that at the time the
trunk was ritled of its contents, the de-
f.ndant was only liable as q gratui-
tous bailee.
But with respect to its manner of
storing and keeping the trunk. the evil
deice fails to show that the defendant
was guilty of any negligence which
would render it liable, as a gratuitous
Bailee, TO compensate the plaintiff for
The loss of baggage taken from its GUS
tody by shop-breakers and thieves. The
trunk was deposited in an ordinarily
we'll constructed baggage room with the
doors and windows secured in the ordi-
nary manner on the night in question.
and the felonious entrance was effected
by breaking out Il pane of glass in one
Of its windows. The plaintiffs conduct
indicated that he regarded this baggage
room as a reasonably safe place for the
storage of. baggage. Wiscassct was his
old home. He must have been familiar
with the condition of the baggage room
of tine defendant company ct that sta
ton. When he stopped in Boston. he
knew that in the ordinary course of
transportation his trunk would reach
its detention in advance of his arrival,
and be stored in this baggage room over
night. After his arrival he made no
taste to call for it and showed, no a,ix-
:ety in regard to it's safety.
There was no went of ordinary care
on the part of the defendant respecting
the custody of the trunk.
Judgment for the defendant.