Source: http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/cc_history.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 17:58:58+00:00

Document:
"Precursors to common carriage go back to the Roman Empire and the legal obligations of shipowners, innkeepers and stable keepers.5 In England early common law placed certain duties on businesses which were considered "public callings." Common or public occupations included those of bakers, brewers, cab drivers, ferrymen, innkeepers, millers, smiths, surgeons, tailors and wharfingers.6 "Common" in that context meant "open to serving the general public" or "general".
"In 1701, an English Court found that "If a man takes upon him a public employment, he is bound to serve the public as far as the employment extends; and for refusal an action lies, as against a farrier refusing to shoe a horse... Against an innkeeper refusing a guest when he has room... Against a carrier refusing to carry goods when he has convenience, his wagon not being full."7 By 1814, with the coming of the industrial revolution and laissez-faire economics, common callings were generally limited to what we would today call infrastructure services in transportation and communications, together with associated facilities such as inns. Common carriage was applied to freight or carriage companies and inland and ocean water carriers. By common law, common carriers were 1) required to serve upon reasonable demand, any and all who sought out their services; 2) held to a high standard of care for the property entrusted to them; and 3) limited to incidental damages for breach of duty. . -- Eli M. Noam, Beyond Liberalization II: The Impending Doom of Common Carriage, 18 Telecomm. Pol'y 435, Sec. II (1994).
OW Holmes, The Common Law: The Bailee at Common Law 180-205 (1881).
M. HALE, THE ANALYSIS OF LAW (1713) (describing businesses that have a public interest).
Lane v. Cotton, 88 Eng. Rep. 1458 (K.B. 1701).
Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S.113, 126 (1876).
In re Request for declaratory ruling and investigation by Graphnet Systems, Inc., concerning the proposed E-COM service, FCC Docket No. 79-6 (Sept 4, 1979) (concluding that USPS E-COM service would be a common carrier service, and noting that if the electronic messaging service were offered by private parties, it would likewise be common carriage). But see Implications of Email p 76 (noting that subsequent Computer II proceeding would classify Email as an "enhanced service," not basic common carriage).
RCW 47.60.220 Department as common carrier - Rights and liabilities.
N. COURNOYER & A. MARSHALL, HOTEL, RESTAURANT AND TRAVEL LAW 4-7 (2d ed. 1983) (discussing the history of hotel common law).
Ski Lift: Squaw Valley Ski Corp. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal Rptr 2d 897 (Ct. App. 1992).
Ocean Shipping carriers, which are regulated by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to the Shipping Act of 1984.
Relying on the Shipping Act's definition of a common carrier, particularly the "transportation" and point-to-point aspects of the Act, the district court determined that Cunard Line was a common carrier. ... Disregarding the district court's distinction between point-to-point and round-trip cruises, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that a cruise liner is a common carrier if it calls between the United States and foreign ports, and therefore would be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the FMC. However, cruse ships that call only at foreign ports would be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal district court... The FMC, the regulatory agency responsible for administering the Shipping Act, has held that cruise ships are common carriers under the terms of the 1984 Shipping Act for United States-to-foreign cruises -- Daniel Eldredge, Classifying Cruise Ships as Common Carriers under the Shipping Act, a Jurisdictional Struggle: American Association of Cruse Passengers v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 15 Tul Mar. L.J. 397, 399-400 (1991).
ROBERT ELLIS SMITH, BEN FRANKLIN’S WEB SITE: PRIVACY AND CURIOSITY FROM PLYMOUTH ROCK TO THE INTERNET 12 (2000).
Taxis are common carriers. St. Michelle v Catania, 252 Md 647, 250 A.2d 874 (1969); Jacobson v. Julian, 246 Md. 549, 229 A.2d 108 (1967); Jacobson v. Julian, 246 Md. 549, 229 A.2d 108 (1967).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.