Court Opinion

ID: 6662427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 21:03:10.073726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:00:13.063533
License: Public Domain

Sedgwick, J.,
concurring.
The plaintiff concedes, at least for the purpose of this case, that the circus train and its attaches, including the plaintiff, were being transported by the circus company and not by the defendant, and therefore that the plaintiff was not a passenger of defendant, and that the plaintiff has the burden of proof of negligence of defendant as the proximate cause of the injury. There is no dispute between the parties as to the meaning and construction of the contract. The decision of this case depends upon the question whether the plaintiff’s contract to relieve the defendant from liability for its own gross negligence is valid and enforceable. Can a common carrier exempt itself from liability for its own neglegence? The act of congress does not allow contracts of that kind, and the conclusion of the majority opinion is therefore right, but I do not concur in all that is said in the lengthy and, to my mind, unnecessary quotation and discussion of the contract.