Simon Greenleaf Papers, 1792-1853. Legal Materials, Cases and Opinions: Box 5, Folder 8, Cases as to Passenger Carriers, 1792-1838.

Cases as to passenger carriers cited in Ingalls v Bills

Aston v Heaven & al. 2 Esp. 533 (1797) Case for negligent driving & coach upset - plf's finger broken Cor. Eyre C.J. Held, cases of goods & passengers totally unlike - Carriers of goods liable, to prevent fraud, & because they can protect themselves & aliter as to passengers - where carriers are liable on the ground of negligence alone.

cited by [Deft?] Israel v Clark & al. 4 Esp. [259?]. (1803) Case for injury to Plf by overturning of coach - ankle broken. One count for overloading - per quod - Verd. for Plf Cor. {Lord} Ellenborough - speaking of overloading, & of exceeding the statute number, he said it depended on the strength of the carriage whether the owners ought to carry so many as that number. "At all events he would expect a clear land-worthiness in the carriage itself to be established."

Christie v Griggs 2 Campb. 79 (1809) Assumpsit v owner, 1^o [1st] for negligence of driver, 2^o [2nd] for insuff^t carriage - which broke down - Plf hurt 1st count disproved - As to 2d count Mansfield C.J. said "If the axle was sound, as far as human eye cd discover, the deft was not liable. There was a diff^ce between a contract to carry goods, & a contract to carry passengers. For the goods, the carrier was answerable at all events. But he did not warrant the safety of the passengers. His undertaking as to them went no farther than this, that as far as human care & foresight cd go, he wd provide for their safe conveyance."

[?] nisi prius wh. explains apparent self contradiction -

(6) Croft v Waterhouse 3 Bing. 319. [1825] Case for negligence of driver in upsetting coach- [[?]] injured- A wage-mark had been removed within 12 hours before, which misled the driver, who "gathered a bank", & overturned- The judge told the jury that as the road was not obstructed, in fact, they must lind for [[?]], because of deviation- New trial granted- because "the distinction between carriers of goods & carriers of passengers was not sufficiently left to the jury": - & because "every thing appeared to have been done that human prudence could suggest."

cited by [[?]] (a) Brenner v Williams 1 C. + P. 414- [1824] Case for damage by insufficiency of coach- [[?]] was riding in dickey, which came offBest C. J. held that owner should examine coach previous to every journey- & that as this had not been done, [[?]] was entitled to recoverIt was admitted that the breaking might have been occasioned by previous overloading = & was proved that the driver was notified of the danger, on the way, & neglected to attend to it. &c

Sharpe v Grey 9 Brig. 457 [1833] Assumpist v coach owner- Axle broke- The defect might have been seen by unscrewing the champs & taking off the woodwork of the axle- Tindal C. J. left it to the jury to consider whether deft had used "that degree of vigilance which was required by his engagement to carry [[?]] safely." [[Recd?]] for [[?]].

Park J. was against a new trial because the jury had found actual negligence in factGaselee J. of same opinion- ([[crossed out]]) Alderson J. of same opinion- and said that owner was responsible for all defects which could be seen when the caoch was constructed, or which could be discovered afterwards, on investigation. Bosanquet J. alone said the coach was not road-worthy; & that "the owner was liable for the consequences, upon the same principle as a ship owner who furnishes a vessel not seaworthy"- This analogy is not true - except as to goods. This case is understood to adopt the doctrine of Christie v Grey- per Savage C. J. in Camben + Amboy Co. v Burke 13 Wend. 627.

Amies v Stevens 1 Stra. 128. (5 Eco. 1) Action v carrier (hay-master)- accident in passing bridge- Deft held dischd per act. Dei- not bound to have a new carriage for every journey- sufficient if he provides one which will perform without extra accident. Per John Pratt C. J.

Jones v Boyce Stark R. 493 [402]

case for so negligently managing coach that Pif was obliged to jump off- leg broken- Held sufft if Pil was, by Defts misconduct, obliged to adopt the alternative of taking a dangerous leap, or remaining at certain peril

[see Stokes v Saltonstall 13 Pet 181 ace.]

American cases

Boyce v Anderson 2 Pet. 150. [1829] Case for drowning 4 slaves of [[?]] by bad management of debt boatHeld- The law of carriers does not extend to carriages of human beings- It is a rule of great rigor, & not to be extended to new cases, or to living men- As to slave-passengers, carrier is liable only for ordinary neglect-

The last mass note of reporter is erroneous- See 3 Am. Jurist p. 109. 13 Pet. 192. It should read as above stated-

Wane v Gay II Pick. 106 [1831] Coach wheel came off, on level road- the nut being worn loose- Held prima lacie evidence of negligence; & that the burden was on deft to show the sufficiency of the coach- & that he was not in fault-

This case plainly assumes the ground that if deft did all that human care & foresight could do, he is not liable-

Camden & Ambor Co. v. Burke 13. Wend. 611. [1835] Case for loss of baggage- by defect of black stage- Held that as common carriers defts were liable for baggage; though not for personal damage, unless happening "from the want of such care & diligence as is characteristic of cautious persons." Affirms the rule laid down to this effect in Christie v Grigg, Ashton v Heaven- & Sharpe v Greg-

Hollister v Nowlen 19 Wend. 234. [1838] This case turns on the right of carrier to limit his liability by notice &c -but recognizes & adopts the distinction between goods & passengers - viz] that for all the safety of the latter, the carrier is not an insurer, but is bound only to a proper degree of care & skill- See p. 236. See Clark v McDonald 4 Mlord 223. Same Distinction.

Stokes v Saltonstall- 13 Pet. 181. [1839] Case for injury by upsetting coach- drunken driver- [[his?]] wife jumped off, from apparent danger- Held, that for an injury by leaping to escape from apparent peril, caused by fault of owner, the latter is liable- [see Jones v Bryce 1 Stark. 402 ace.] - also, that as to passengers, the owner undertakes to their safety only as far as competent skill, & human prudence & foresight can go- see p. 191. approves this rule in Christie v Griggs- & Ashton v Heaven-

Story Bailew & 601. 601. a. 602. 498. 499. 509. 502. 571. a. 590 592. 2 Kent. Commn. 600.

See Story Bailew. 3d Ed. where & 592 is altered. 2 Kent. Commn. p. 600. 601. McKinney v Neil 1 McLean's R. 540 [[?]] injured by upsetting stage coach- Held 1st that upsetting was prima facie evidence of negligence- but, 2d that this might be rebutted by evidence &c

The reasons for holding a com. carrier liable for Cols from every cause but act of God & public enemies utterly fail in case of passengersfor 1: no danger of collusion with robbers &c 2: nothing to defraud of 3: no motive for breach of trust or duty 6: obligation to extreme care suft for every case 4: carrier cannot know the value of his risk beforehand 5: Nor protect himself by insurance- [re- insurance]