Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1912-07-12
PLIBLIC'S RIGHT ON RAILROADS
Diversity of Judicial Opinion Often Clouds
Issue and Conceals Outcome of
Damage Suits.

though the limited did not stop at the
station indicated by his ticket.
The courts of various states have
often ruled that railroads can order
certain trains not to stop at certain
stations, but it was the punching of the
ticket that won the Ohioan's case.
The court regarded It as evidence that
the company had accepted him as
passenger in violation Of its own rule.
| While the courts have many times
held that the actual payment of fare
is not necessary to make a person on
train a passenger, they have also
held that an offer to pay fare to rail-
road employee not authorized to re-
ceive 1t Is not an offer to the company,
and hence does not entitle the person
making the offer to the rights Of a
passenger
| To board a train in utter disregard
of a rule requiring the purchase OF a
ticket places one on the same legal
basis with one who refuses to pay.
Railway patrons are bound to comply
/ WITH I'LL TcdSOIdpiC EuiCo diu oioSio VI
the company or It's agents.
Even the possession Of a ticket does
not entitle one to transportation II 1t
is stamped. mot good after date of
sale," or If the limit has expired. A
person who presents such ticket, void
on it's face, and refuses to pay fare,
is a trespasser.
| The cases which have been mention
ed cover but few Of the many diverse
opinions as to what constitutes pas
senger. Next to be considered are the
rights Of a passenger. These are far
too numerous for thorough treatment
in q limited space, but few examples
will give some idea Of the attitude OF
the legal mind toward the subject.
| The supreme court Of Mississippi has
decreed that a carrier or railroad Is
not required to assist passengers to
board trains or to alight.
But the court also held that II a
carrier stops its trains where passen-
gers cannot enter or leave the cars
without difficulty. 1t Is the duty Of the
conductor to assist them.
| Regarding the time and place to de-
train the courts in different states
have handed down a bewildering vari-
ETY. Of decisions. In many cases 1t has
been decided that the announcement
of station is not in itself a notice to
alight.
| An Alabama man leaving a train fell
from a trestle and was hurt. The su-
| preme court held that as It was night
the passenger was warranted In think
ing the train was at the station. when,
as a matter of fact, It was at water
tank rs yards from the platform.
A man of 76 years boarded a train
at Staunton, Va, to secure seat for
his daughter. He fingered In the car
until the train was in motion.
The brakeman, realizing the old
mans danger, tried to prevent him
from jumping from the car. but the
old man tore himself from the brake
mans hold, fell under the wheels and
was killed. His estate sued for dam
ages and the case vas carried to the
supreme court.
Although an attempt was made to
show that the old man might have
alighted in safety If the brakeman had
not interfered, the case was decided In
favor Of the railroad. the court hold
ing. first, that as the deceased on
boarding the train did not notify the
trainmen that he meant to alight be-
fore 1t started, they were justified in
assuming that he was a passenger;
and, second, that the brakeman did his
duty in trying to prevent him from
alighting.
A, North Carolina man who boarded
train to find a seat for his daughter
and her three children, broke his leg
in leaping from the car after 1t had
started. He sued for damages and Sc
cured them.
In this case the man had taken the
precaution to notify the trainmen that
he was boarding the train only to find
seat for his daughter. He hurried
from the car without delay, but the
train started with such violent jerk
that he had to jump.
1t Is a curious relic, for the possibil-
ity of a railroad refusing to check
baggage in these days is altogether too
remote to be considered.
Some railroad men do not even know
Of the existence of this statute. One
general counsel went so far as to de-
clare positively that there was no such
law in existence. He marveled great
ly when it was shown him.
Idaho has identically the same law,
except that the railroad must forfeit
$50 instead of $40 to the passenger
whose baggage 1t refuses to check.
A railroad in that state became in
volved with this law. A man with his
wife and daughter, having purchased
tickets, boarded a train at Shelley at
2 o'clock in the morning. AS there
was no night agent at Shelley the pas
sengers could not check their baggage,
which consisted Of q trunk and a roll
of bedding. 1t was customary for the
train baggageman to check baggage
under such circumstances.
In this case the trainmen became an
cry, put the trunk on board the train.
but abandoned the bedding. They re-
fused to give the man check for th2
trunk.
He told the conductor that he had
tickets, but refused to surrender them
until he had received a check for .he
trunk. The conductor ordered him
from the train.
He swung on to the rear platform as
it passed A brakeman loosened his
hold with a kick. He fell to the tracks
and was severely hurt.
He sued for damages and obtained
verdict awarding him $4,000. The
case was carried to a higher court. 1t
sustained the baggage law in emphatic
terms and affirmed the verdict.
A valuable right of the passenger is
that which entities him to have bag
gage carried on the train on which he
travels. This right has been upheld