The railways generously permit a baby to be carried without charge; but
not, it seems, without incurring responsibility. It has been lately
decided, in “Austin _v._ the Great Western Railway Company,” 16 L. T.
Rep., N. S., 320, that where a child in arms, not paid for as a
passenger, is injured by an accident caused by negligence, the company is
liable in damages under Lord Campbell’s Act. Three of the judges were
clearly of opinion that the company had, by permitting the mother to take
the child in her arms, contracted to carry safely both mother and child;
and Blackburn, J., went still further, and was of opinion that,
independently of any such contract, express or implied, the law cast upon
the company a duty to use proper and reasonable care in carrying the
child, though unpaid for. It may appear somewhat hard upon railway
companies to incur liabilities through an act of liberality, but they
have chosen to do so. The law is against them, that is clear; but they
have the remedy in their own hands. There was some reason for exempting
a child in arms, for it occupies no place in the carriage, and is but a
trifling addition of weight. But now it is established that the company
is responsible for the consequences of accident to that child, the
company is clearly entitled to make such a charge as will secure them
against the risk. The right course would be to have a tariff, say
one-fifth or one-fourth of the full fare, for a child in arms; and if
strict justice was done, this would be deducted from the fares of the
passengers who have the ill-luck to face and flank the squaller.
—_Law Times_, 1867.