Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1912-07-12

gally bound to guard the baggage Of
passengers. The courts have so held
in a number of cases.
One case, involving the theft Of
Jewels valued at $1,000 from a sleeping
car in daylight, was carried to the su-
preme court of Georgia. 1t affirmed a
verdict for the full value of the prop
erty.
In another case the same court ruled
In favor of the sleeping car company.
In this instance the circumstances
were unusual.
AS the train was leaving a station, a
thief standing on the truss-rod under
the car reached through an open
window and seized handbag.
The owner sued the company for the
value Of his baggage, but the court
held that as this particular form of
theft could not have been anticipated,
the company was not responsible for
the loss.
Some uncertainty seems to exist as to
what constitutes baggage. 1t is estab-
lished that jewelry for personal use Is
baggage, while jewelry for sale is not.
Samples are not baggage, but II the
road checks his samples as baggage
the presumption is established.
The courts have held that the road
knows what the trunks contain, and
hence II they are lost they must be
considered as baggage.
The passenger must not expect the
railroad to care for his baggage indefi-
nitely. If baggage Is not claimed
within a reasonable time 1t is the duty
of the railroad to store 1t properly.
Then it's liability as carrier ceases.
The courts seem unable to agree on
what constitutes reasonable time. If
baggage arrives at night the next
morning is generally considered a rea-
sonable time.
In a number of instances courts
have held that the morning Of the
second day after the passengers ar
rival is "a reasonable time" in which
he should claim his baggage.
In a New York case it was decided
that a passenger arriving at his des-
tination on a Sunday, during which
secular work is forbidden by law, was
not excused from calling for his bag
gage until Monday.
Another valuable right of the pas
senger is protection against dogs.
A woman in a train in the state of
Washington was bitten by a dog car
ried into the car by another woman.
Instead of suing the owner Of the dog,
the injured party sued the railroad.
The case was decided in favor Of the
bitten passenger. The court declared
that the railroad company had no
right to carry dogs in passenger cars.
The passenger has no protection
from draughts. This contention has
been settled by the highest courts of
Kentucky.
Memphis to Bowling Green was OBJ
liged because of a wreck to transfer
from a sleeping car to a day coach
during the early morning. The time
being August, some Of the windows
in the coach were open, causing
draughts which were alleged to have
been a contributing cause Of her death,
which occurred soon after.
Her estate sued the railroad COM
pany for damages, but the court held
that the railroad company was not liza
BILE to a passenger because Of mat
ters which are ordinary incidents of
travel, such as exposure to draughts
from windows opened by. or at the re-
quest of other passengers.
The highest court Of Pennsylvania
has declared that more than reason
able care and prudence are required
Of a carrier for the safety Of passen-
gers, and this position has been sus-
tanned by other courts.
A careless porter crushed the hand
OF a woman passenger between the
wall Of a sleeping car and a table.
The passenger sued the railroad for
damages and obtained a verdict for
$4,000.
The verdict was affirmed by the
highest court Of Alabama, which de-
clared that a railroad could not es-
cape liability on the ground that the
injury was inflicted in a car owned by
another company. and that the porter
exercised control over the sleeping car
with the assent of the railroad.
On the other hand. the passenger
is bound to exercise reasonable care
in protecting himself. A Massachu-
setts man. unable to find a seat on a
train, remained standing.
Unfortunately, he chose a place In
the open door, from which he was
hurled to the ground by an unusual
lurch Of the car. He sued for dam
ages, but the court decided against
him on the ground that he was guilty
Of contributory negligence in standing
in the doorway.-Railroad Mems Mag
azine.