Court Opinion

ID: 9417811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:39:20.61887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:51.139706
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Harlan,
dissenting.
In Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357, 381, it was held that a “common carrier cannot lawfully stipulate for exemption from responsibility when such^exemption is not just and reasonable in the eye of the law; ” that “ it is not just and reasonable in the eye oí the law for a common carrier to stipulate for exemptionfrom responsibility for the negligence of himself or his. servants; ” that “these rules apply both to carriers of goods and carriers of passengers for hire, and with special force to the. latter; ” and that “ a drover travelling on a pass, such as was given in ihis case, is a passenger for hire.” The railroad pass referred to declared that its acceptance was to be considered a waiver of all claims for damages or injuries received on the train. The above principles have been recognized and enforced 'by this court in numerous cases.
I am of opinion that the present case is within the doctrines of Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, and that the judgment should be affirmed upon the broad ground that the defendant corpora*521tion could not, in any form, stipulate for exemption from responsibilty for the negligence of its servants or employés in the course of its business whereby injury comes to any person using its cars, with its consent, for purposes of transportation. That the person transported is not technically a passenger and does not ride in a car ordinarily used for passengers is immaterial.