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."