LEGAL RIGHTS OF TRAVELERS.
For the information contained in this chapter the author is indebted
to a well-known lawyer of New York, who has had considerable
experience in suits of individuals against railway and steamship
companies, and is therefore thoroughly competent to write on the
subject.
"In considering the legal rights of travelers it is necessary to
remember that they are not the same in all countries, nor even in
different states of one country. Legal right in England may not be
legal right in France or the United States, and a decision of a court
in New York may be quite opposed to one in a case exactly similar in
Ohio or California. I will endeavor to give a summary of decisions
embodying the most important relations of the traveler to the carrying
companies, and where there are two cases of similar character, that
have been differently decided, I shall prefer the one from the higher
court.
"One of the most frequent causes of dispute in the United States is
the time for which a ticket is valid. It has been generally held that
a ticket for a single trip over a railway is good for any length of
time, with the understanding that when the journey begins it shall be
completed in a continuous ride. This applies only to single tickets
over the road of one company; when the ticket has one or more coupons
attached, and is sold at a lower rate than the single fares would
amount to if added together, it is liable to be refused on the ground
that it is in the form of a contract that expired a certain number of
days after the ticket was issued. There have been many decisions on
this subject, the majority of them favoring the claims of the company
against the passenger.
"An excursion or round trip ticket, sold at a reduced rate, is held to
be a contract, and is worthless if not used in the time specified. It
is also non-transferable, if so printed on the face, and the conductor
may refuse it when offered, on the return trip, by any person other
than the one who used the first half. The theory is that in
consideration of the reduced rate the company should have the benefit
of any chance that the original purchaser does not return within the
specified time. The courts of most of the United States, and also
those of England and the Continental countries, are in accord on this
subject.
"A ticket marked 'good for this day only,' or 'for this train only,'
was formerly held to be good for any day till used, but of late years
the majority of decisions are in favor of the printed limitation, on
the ground that the companies have a right to regulate their business,
and that they must know how many people are to travel by a train in
order to make it up properly. But in this case the purchaser of a
ticket may have his money returned provided he asks for it before the
departure of the train, or can show that it is the fault of the
company that he has not used it.
"In regard to the validity of a ticket in the reverse direction from
what it reads, there have been several decisions both ways, the
passenger claiming that he had paid to be carried a given number of
miles over the road and he had a right to travel either way, as he
chose. A passenger on the New York and New Haven railway recovered
damages for injuries received while being ejected from the cars, but
it required a law-suit of five years, and repeated trials, to obtain
them. He had offered a ticket from New Haven to New York while riding
in the reverse direction, and was put off in consequence. In another
instance a passenger from Boston to Portland sued for damages, for
ejection from the train when he offered a ticket 'from Portland to
Boston,' and lost his case; and the majority of the decisions in
England and the United States favor this view of the subject.
"It has been held repeatedly that a passenger is entitled to a seat,
and cannot be required to give up his ticket until a seat is provided,
though he must show it if asked. A passenger on a New York railway
found no seats in the ordinary coaches and went into the drawing-room
car that formed part of the train. When called on for the extra charge
for the seat he refused it, but announced his readiness to return to
the ordinary coaches as soon as a place was provided for him there.
Thereupon he was ejected by the porter, and he brought suit against
the railway company for damages. The latter claimed it was not
responsible, as the drawing-room car was the property of a private
individual, and not of the railway, but the courts rejected this claim
and gave damages to the passenger. Similar decisions have been made in
several cases where railway and sleeping-car companies were concerned,
the courts holding that the railways are responsible for the
management of the cars that compose their trains, although they may
not own them. This principle has been affirmed by the Court of Appeals
of New York, and by the Supreme Court of the United States.
"It was formerly held that a conductor must allow a passenger to ride
when he had lost his ticket, providing he gave reasonable proof of
having purchased one before entering the train, but of late years the
courts are inclined to the opinion that it is the passenger's place to
take care of his ticket, and it is unfair to ask the conductor to hold
a court of inquiry concerning it. Besides, the company has no
protection against carrying the person who finds the ticket. In
Illinois a passenger in a Pullman car lost his ticket after showing it
to the porter; the conductor came around before the train started and
demanded the ticket, or its equivalent, and refused to take the
porter's word about it, whereupon the passenger went to the
ticket-office and procured a certificate to the effect that he had
bought a ticket. This the conductor refused, and compelled the
passenger to ride in the ordinary coach all night. A jury gave $3,000
damages to the passenger, but a higher court said this amount was
excessive, and the man was only entitled to what he had paid for the
ticket, and moderate compensation for the inconvenience of being
deprived of a place in the sleeping-car.
"There have been frequent lawsuits involving the rights of persons
traveling on free passes; the railway pass usually bears on its back a
printed notice that 'the person accepting this free pass thereby
assumes all risk of accidents,' etc., etc. The courts have generally
held that this notice is of no consequence, and the holders of free
passes have collected damages for injury to their persons, or loss of
property, while using said tickets. The theory is that the pass is
granted for some consideration which is the equivalent of the money
that would be required to purchase a ticket at the office, and
therefore the company is liable, and it has been affirmed by the
Supreme Court. Since these decisions, some of the railways print the
notice in the form of a contract or agreement, which the passenger
signs before delivering the pass to the conductor; no suit under this
form of pass has been reported, and the companies think they could not
be mulcted under it, as they could show a specific agreement on the
part of the passenger not to ask for damages in any event. A tramp, or
other person, stealing a ride on a train has no redress for damages,
nor any other rights which the company is bound to respect.
"Damages have been recovered in several instances for injuries
received in railway stations before the intending passenger had
entered the train, or even purchased a ticket, and they have also been
recovered for injuries received in the station after the completion of
the journey. In all these cases it was shown that the person was in
the station either for the intention of traveling, or after the
completion of the journey, and in one case where the plaintiff could
not establish this fact he lost his case.
"In a case where a passenger in an omnibus was injured by the
upsetting of the vehicle, through the driver's carelessness, damages
were given by a jury. The omnibus belonged to the railway company, and
was run by them between the station and neighboring village. The
passenger had no ticket, as tickets were only sold at the station,
whither he was going, but it was held that his journey began when he
entered the company's omnibus with the intention of traveling by the
railway.
"The right of a passenger to protection from drunken and disorderly
persons, and from ruffians in general, has been established. The
courts have decided that the company through its agents must use 'due
diligence' for the protection of peaceable passengers, and unless it
does so it is liable. A good illustration is that of a railway in
Mississippi where some rowdies beat a passenger severely, and the
latter sued the company for negligence. It was shown that the
conductor simply asked the rowdies not to get him into trouble, and
then left the car; the court held that the company was liable for his
failure to use due diligence in protecting the passenger, and gave the
latter $6,000 damages, but if the conductor had stopped the train, and
called the brakemen and passengers to assist him, the damages would
not have been allowed, even if the conductor had failed in his effort
at protection.
"Suits have arisen out of the loss of property by passengers in
sleeping-cars, and in most instances the company is not held
responsible, as it is not a common carrier, and the court rules that
it is the passenger's duty to take care of his own personal valuables.
The same rulings have been made in several cases where property has
been lost in an ordinary passenger-car and suit brought against the
company, the courts holding that when a man chooses to take care of
his valise or hand-bag it is not in the care of the company. So, also,
in instances where passengers have been robbed while on railway
trains, the courts have exonerated the companies, except where
absolute negligence has been shown. In one case some ruffians entered
a car and robbed a passenger of $15,000 in U.S. bonds; the courts held
that the company was not responsible, since $15,000 was altogether too
large an amount of valuables to be carried about one's person, and
before the company was to be held liable it should have been notified,
and the property intrusted to its care.
"Responsibility for baggage has given rise to a great many suits on
the part of passengers, and the decisions are numerous and varied. In
general it is held that a passenger can recover for the loss of
personal property such as he wishes to use and actually needs on his
journey, 'in reasonable amount.' Most of the railway companies in
America stipulate on their tickets that the passenger is limited to
one hundred dollars in value and one hundred pounds in weight of
baggage, and if he has more than one hundred dollars' worth he must
declare it, and pay in addition at the rate of a single fare for every
five hundred dollars in value. Extra trunks are usually paid for by
the piece, rather than by the weight or value, and checks given
accordingly.
"In a suit growing out of the loss of baggage the passenger is
required to tell the contents of his trunk, and the jury must decide
whether the missing articles belonged properly to the traveler's
outfit. In one case a man lost a trunk which contained his 'wardrobe.'
When he stated, which he did very reluctantly, that the trunk
contained sixteen coats of different sizes, and no other garments, the
jury thought it a remarkable wardrobe for a traveler, and he lost his
case. Money, watches, and jewelry are admitted to be a part of one's
baggage, but they must be carefully packed, and not excessive in
amount. Discrimination is made in favor of money, as most civilized
nations have recognized this article as a requisite of travel.
Surgeons' instruments, law books, and papers for a lawyer going to
attend court, dresses of actors and actresses, uniforms of soldiers,
and in general anything that may be classed under the head of 'tools
of a trade or profession' are legitimate baggage, and form a good
basis of a suit for damages in case of loss. A gambler once brought
suit for the loss of his trunk, which contained a roulette table and
other paraphernalia of his 'profession,' together with two revolvers
and a bowie-knife. The court decided against him on the ground that
his occupation was _contra bonos mores_, and the railway company
could not be held to a responsibility for anything intended to
demoralize the community.
"Where there is clear proof of the loss of a trunk a railway company
will generally pay without litigation, if the claimant is a person of
respectability, and there is reason to believe that the statement of
contents is correct, provided also that the amount claimed is not
enormous. It is better for the company to pay one or two hundred
dollars in a genuine case than to go to the courts, where it would be
pretty sure to be defeated, but there are some companies that make it
a rule never to pay until sued, on the ground that they frighten away
a great many timid persons, as well as others who cannot afford the
time for a lawsuit.
"A famous case, involving the question of what is necessary to one's
personal comfort on a journey, is that of a Russian countess against
the New York Central railway. One of her trunks, containing laces to
the value of $200,000, was opened while she was traveling from New
York to Niagara Falls, and about 200 yards of lace were stolen. It was
antique and costly, and valued at $80,000; the trunk was old and worn,
and its exterior gave no indication of the wealth within. The Countess
sued for the value of the lace, and the company defended the suit on
the ground that the lady had no right to carry such property in a
common trunk, and that it was her duty to inform the company, through
its agent, the baggage-master, of the value of the trunk, and pay the
proper price for its insurance. The court held that she was not bound
to volunteer information, but it was her duty to answer all proper
questions concerning her baggage, and to pay whatever was demanded as
extra freight. But as nobody had questioned her she was not in the
wrong; considering her station in life the laces were necessary to her
comfort, and she was awarded $30,000 in compensation for her loss.
"Suits for lost baggage are far less common in Europe than in America.
They generally result in favor of the companies, especially where two
or more are concerned. Between Paris and London losses occur from time
to time, and when the passenger seeks redress he is told that he must
show whether the loss took place in France, England, or on the
channel, so that the responsibility can be fixed. Of course he can
rarely do so; all he knows is that his trunk started from one end of
the route and failed to arrive at the other; the company that took it
swears it delivered it safely to the other, while the latter swears
that it never received it. The unlucky passenger gets the worst of it,
and the matter is complicated by having different languages, laws, and
customs to contend with. The courts generally take the side of the
companies by throwing the burden of proof on the loser; a similar
juggle is not unknown in America, as the patrons of freight, express,
and transportation lines in general can testify. A parcel or a box
will be lost between New York and San Francisco; the shipper holds a
receipt or a bill of lading from the company to whom he delivered it
in New York, and it is clearly evident that he can know nothing about
the movements of his property after it left his hands. But when he
asks for redress he is told to 'prove where the loss occurred and let
us know who is responsible.'
"Most of the Continental lines of railway have a fixed tariff for
payment for lost baggage, and on proof of disappearance of a trunk or
a satchel they pay with reasonable promptness. Baggage is so well
cared for on the Continent that losses are rare, but the complaints
are not infrequent of robberies from trunks while in transit.
Travelers on their way from Italy to England sometimes find that their
baggage, which was booked through, has been opened while on the road,
and valuables abstracted; suspicion points directly to the railway
servants, but when a sufferer asks the railway companies to pay him he
is met with the response that he must prove on what road the theft
occurred, and must also name the man or men concerned in it. As he is
unable to do this he loses his time as well as his property, and his
principal consolation is to write an account of the affair to the
_London Times_ or some other English newspaper.
"The laws regarding common carriers apply to steamships and steamboats
the same as to railways, and the decisions in cases arising from loss
of the property of passengers are of the general character already
described.
"Many suits have arisen consequent upon the failure of railway
companies to run their trains at the advertised time, missing
connections, or otherwise causing loss to the passenger. The courts
have generally held that the advertised time-table of a company has
the validity of a contract with the public, and unless it can show
that the failure to keep the agreement was quite beyond its control,
the passenger must be paid for any immediate loss resulting therefrom.
But the allowances are confined to 'direct' rather than to 'indirect'
damages, and include extra expense for hotel bills or for special
conveyances, and sometimes compensation for injury to health by
exposure. A merchant may be able to show that by missing a connection
he lost the opportunity to make a valuable contract; a lawyer may
prove that a case went against him because the delay on the railway
prevented his reaching court till after the judge had rendered his
decision; or an actor may show that he disappointed an audience and
lost the profits of a performance for the same reason. In all these
instances the courts will not hold the companies responsible, as the
loss is constructive and not actual. On the other hand the passenger
is held guiltless for a free ventilation of his opinions to the
conductor or other representative of the company, and he may even
indulge in profane expressions, if he is unrestrained by moral
training.
"There is a case on record in which a railway train that was running
behind time was struck by a tornado, whereby a passenger was injured.
A suit was brought for damages on the ground that if the train had
been on time it would not have encountered the storm, but the court
held that the delay was not in any way the cause of the tornado, and
therefore the company had no responsibility in the matter. Accidents
from floods, snow-storms, and similar causes are regarded by the
courts as 'the act of God,' and if a company can show that it used all
diligence to avert disaster, and made every reasonable effort to get
the train through on time, it is exonerated.
"Delays on steamships are regarded in the same light. If a steamer
meets with an accident at sea, or is detained by storms, the
occurrence is treated as a case of _force majeure_, for which the
owners of the ship are not responsible, unless negligence or
incapacity of the officers can be clearly shown. If a steamer breaks
down after starting on a voyage, and returns to the port of departure,
her passengers are entitled to be conveyed on the vessel as soon as
the necessary repairs are effected, or on some other vessel of the
same company, but the company is not required to return the money paid
for the passenger's fare unless it has no vessel to start on the
voyage 'within a reasonable time.' It generally does so by courtesy,
to avoid making enemies, and not infrequently the company pays the
hotel bills of delayed passengers for the same reason. In the
Mediterranean and the far East a passenger delayed by the failure of a
ship to make a connection, or from any other cause, must pay his own
hotel bills, and if he lives on board the ship while waiting in port
he must pay for his meals, but not for his lodging.
"When a ship is detained in quarantine the passengers must pay for
their meals, at a reasonable price, which is usually fixed beforehand.
Several suits, growing out of delays in quarantine, have arisen, and
almost invariably the decisions have been in favor of the steamship
companies. In one instance a steamer touched at an infected port on
her way, and thereby subjected herself to be quarantined on arriving
at her destination. It was shown that she was not advertised to touch
at the port in question, and her agents, at the point of departure,
had distinctly stated she would not stop there; the court compelled
the refunding of the money paid for board during the ten days'
quarantine, and also other expenses caused by the delay, on the ground
that there had been a clear violation of agreement with the public.
"The reader who desires fuller information on this subject will do
well to consult 'Judge and Jury,' by Benjamin Vaughan Abbott, and 'The
Law of the Road, or Wrongs and Rights of a Traveler,' by R. Vashon
Rogers. 'Judge and Jury' endeavors to show the law of the land on
topics of general public interest, and about sixty pages of the book
are devoted to travel and transportation. 'The Law of the Road' is in
the form of a story, introducing all the incidents and accidents of
travel, and their legal aspects. In both books the decisions of the
courts are cited, so that they can be readily found. 'Lawson on Common
Carriers' is also recommended as an excellent authority on matters
indicated by its title."