The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-07-24
ROwDYTSM on CITY RAILROADS.
Law Reports show n 90 Ne the Company's
Duty TO Protect Passengers.

To THE EpIroR OF THE SuN-sir: 10 II
said that Commissions Bingham Is coDsid-
ering ways and means Of supervising rowdy-
ism on ths Interboroueh trains. 10 has
occurred 20 me, and doubtless to others. that
the duty OF policing the PETERBOROUGH trains
rests on the Interborough company rather
than on the city. This was the rule acted
upon by Com missioner Bingham In regard 10
policing the ball grounds. and In theory IL Ia
equally applicable to the present case.
II In well settled that a common carrier
owes a duty to Its passengers to protect them
from the violence OF their fellow passengers.
and II the cavier f. guilty OF negligence IN
this regard II must respond In damages to
those injured. See q C~yciopedia Of Law
and Procedure. 500. where Emlin McTain. a
well recognized legal author. nov Associate
Justice Of the Iowa Supreme Court. discusses
the rule and collates the authorities In the
article Carriers" In some States. indeed, a
passenger may recover for mere mental
suffering caused by vulgar. profane or indie
cent language Of fellow passengers which
might have been prevented by the carrier.
However this may be in New York. II lie un-
doubtedly the rule in this State that a carrier
Ia bound TO exercise the utmost vigilance IN
maintaining order on Its trains and guarding
Of their fellow passengers Putnam vs..
Broadway. &c., r. Co.. SIS n, Y. los. IA Am.
Req, 100; Hcndricks We; SIKH c Ave; R So3
" - u v W. o. oht 49, ~ NhFNA
in the encyclopaedia.
The liability of the carrier In grounded on
its negligence: consequently II Is not neCes-
sarily liable for the results of every isolated
and unlocked for dist urbaDce on its trains.
If. however, the danger IL one that may he
pated. the carrier Ia liable for its failure to
take precautionary measures toward MAIN
tanning order. This seems to convict the
marlborough company OF negligence. since
the disturbances on it's trains are now and
long have been OF regular holiday occurrence,
reasonably TO be anticipated and guarded
against.
The cases cited in the books In regard TO
thus matter generally turn on the question
whether the carriers employees did all they
were able TO do TO protect its passenger.
The question whether the carrier employed a
sufficient number Of servants TO preserve
order has seldom IL ever arisen. and the
jority Of cases order can be preserved hy ths
ordinary train crew. In the case OF the Inter-
borough company, however, the contrary 3
demonstrated weekly. and the company Ia
certainly negli gent in not providing more
men for these emergencies.
II seems clear that the public authorities
have power to compel the company to per-
Police commissioner is concerned. however.
a practical difficulty stands In his way. In
the case OF the ball grounds, IL the managers
had failed to preserve order the Commits
sioner might have closed the grounds; hut it
can scarcely he said that he may stop inter.
take precautions against riotinG on ite rains.
The company must be compelled to perform
it's duty in this regard by some other author
ity and by some other means. II seems to DO
a case for the utilities commission.
New YoRE. July ~. l.. l.. H.