Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/349

 PART IV.] LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF AGENTS. [§ 352. the carrier may stipulate that it shall not be responsible for losses arising from lire; 1 and indeed for any loss not occasioned by its negligence or that of its employes. 2 § 352. But neither a carrier of passengers nor a carrier of goods can competently stipulate for immunity from liability for losses or injuries caused by negligence cannot for which it is responsible. Such a stipulation is f^Tmstfua- void as against public policv. On this point the bili *y for o r r. r negligence. leading case is Railroad Company v. Lockwood. 3 Its reasoning is unanswerable ; and the importance of the matter warrants somewhat extended quotation from the opinion of the court, which was given by Justice Bradley. " As the duties and responsibilities of public carriers were prescribed by public policy, it has been seriously doubted whether the courts did wisely in allowing that policy to be de- parted from without legislative interference, by which needed modifications could have been introduced into the law. But the great hardship on the carrier in certain special cases, where goods of great value or subject to extra risk were delivered to him without notice of their character, and where losses hap- pened by sheer accident without any possibility of fraud or collu- sion on his part, such as collisions at sea, accidental fire, etc., led to a relaxation of the rule to the extent of authorizing certain exemptions from liability in such cases to be provided for, either 19 Wend. 234; Cole v. Goodwin, ib. 251; Clark v. Faxton, 21 Wend. 153; Dorr v. New Jersey Steam Naviga- tion Co., 11 N. Y. 485; Western Transn. Co. v. Newhall, 24 111. 466; Merchants' Despatch Trans. Co. v. Theilbar, 86 111. 71 ; Michigan Central R. R. Co. v. Hale, 6 Mich. 243; Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Reynolds, 17 Kan. 251 ; York Co. v. Central R. R., 3 Wall. 107. 1 Lamb v. Camden and Amboy R. R. Co., 46 N. Y. 271; Steinweg v. Erie Railway, 43 N. Y. 123; Squire v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 98 Mass. 239; Grace v. Adams, 100 Mass. 505; Hoadley v. Northern Trans. Co., 115 Mass. 304. When a loss arises from a cause in respect of which the carrier has stipu- lated for freedom from liability, a person damaged may show that had it not been for the negligent or other- wise improper conduct of the carrier, that cause would not have operated. Transportation Co. v. Downer, 11 Wall. 129; see Holladay v. Kennard, 12 Wall. 254; Railroad Co. v. Reeves, 10 Wall. 176; Propeller Niagara v. Cordes, 21 How. 7; Nelson v. Wood- ruff, 1 Black, 156; Little Rock, etc., R'y Co. v. Talbot, 39 Ark. 523; com- pare Stokes v. Saltonstall,13 Pet. 181; Railroad Co. v. Pollard, 22 Wall. 341. 2 York Co. v. Central Railroad, 3 Wall. 107. See Camp v. Hartford, etc., Steamboat Co., 43 Conn. 333. 3 17 Wall. 357. 329