Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/643

 628 FEDERAL EBPORTER. �Louis, through the negligence of the defendant, either acting directly through its immediate employes or acting by other agents with whom it had contracted for intermediate service, then said railroad is liable. �The varions matters presented in evidence conoerning the relations of the Indianapolis & St. Louis Eailroad and the Union Eailway & Transit Company call upon the court to determine, as a question of law, whether — First, the liability of the Indianapolis & St. Louis Eailroad ceased, as a common carrier, at or before the time of the accident; and, second, whether the Union Eailway & Transit Com- pany had at that time imposed upon it, also, the duties of a common carrier. �The duties of the Indianapolis & St. Louis Eailroad Company to the plaintiff as a common carrier, if the faots are as alleged, did not cease nntil the arrivai of the train at St. Louis, although it may have entered into a contract with others to furnish the motive power for hauling the train over the bridge and tunnel. If it was not one of the Connecting roads for a through route, its liability ended at the termination of its route. �As to the Union Eailway & Transit Company, its liabilities are not those of a common carrier. It had entered into no personal contract with the plaintiff, tinless it was one of the common carriers in the through route. But the charter of the latter company does not make it a common carrier as to operations in East St. Louis, nor do any of the contracts produced. Hence, the Union Eailway & Transit Company is not liable to the plaintiff for any injury sustained, unless it was guilty of direct negligence or unskilfulness, causing the said injury. If that company did, through such negligence or unskilful- ness, cause the injury alleged, it must respond in damages ; other- wise, not. �Thus, the jury will decide — First, did the plaintiff sustain any injury ; and, if so, what is the amount of damages to be awarded him. Second, whether the injury was sustained by plaintiff from the negligence of the Indianapolis & St. Louis Eailroad, or from the negligence of its agents. Third, as the liability of the Union Eail- way & Transit Company rests upon the degree of negligence of which it was guilty, whether its direct negligence or unskilfulness caused the injury. It was bound, not to the extraordinary diligence required of a common carrier, but to the ordinary diligence and skill which its employment needs. �It must be understood that, so far as the plaintiff is concerned. ��� �