(seq. 5)

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 passengers-
for 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]