Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/91591/santa-fe-prescott-phoenix-ry-co-vs-grant-bros
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 16:54:44+00:00

Document:
Appellant Santa Fe, Prescott and Phoenix Ry Co.
A contract made by a railroad company for construction work is one made outside of the performance of its duty as a common carrier, and a stipulation that the contractor, in consideration of lawfully reduced rates for transportation of supplies and employees, will assume all risk of damage of any kind even if occasioned by tho company's negligence is not void as against public policy. Balt. & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Voight, 176 U. S. 498 , followed; Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357, distinguished.
Railroad Company v. Lockwood, supra, pp. 84 U. S. 378 -379. For these reasons, the common carrier, in the prosecution of its business as such, is not permitted to drop its character and transmute itself by contract into a mere bailee, with right to stipulate against the consequences of its negligence.
Manifestly this rule has no application when a railroad company is acting outside the performance of its duty as a common carrier. In such case, it is dealing with matters involving ordinary considerations of contractual relation; those who choose to enter into engagements with it are not at a disadvantage, and its stipulations even against liability for its own neglect are not repugnant to the requirements of its public service. The rule extends no further than the reason for it. It is apparent that there may be special engagements which are not embraced within its duty as a common carrier, although their performance may incidentally involve the actual transportation of persons and things, whose carriage in other circumstances might be within its public obligation. Baltimore &c.; Railway Co. v. Voigt, 176 U. S. 498 , and cases cited; Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Adams, 192 U. S. 440 ; Long v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 130 F. 870.
Id., pp. 84 U. S. 362 -363.
"In Hosmer v. Railroad Company, 156 Mass. 506, the plaintiff was an expressman, and had agreed that, in consideration of the company's allowing him to ride in baggage cars on its trains, he would 'assume all risk of accidents and injuries resulting therefrom.' In both cases, the language of the contract, although not expressly including injuries or accidents by negligence, was construed to relieve the railroad company from liability for injuries by negligence. In Chicago &c.; R. Co. v. Wallace, 66 F. 506, the language of the contract was as general as it is in the present case, and the railroad company was exonerated from liability."

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