Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/353

 PART IV.] LIABILITY FOR TORTS OF AGENTS. [§ 354. § 354. It is also held that when a railroad or an express com- pany agrees to transport a package beyond its terminus, or over See Hall v. Cheney, 36 N. H. 26. North Carolina: Smith v. North Caro- lina R. R. Co., 64 N. C. 235. Ohio: Welsh v. Pittsburgh, Ft. W. and C. R. R. Co., 10 Ohio St. 65; Cleve- land, Painsville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Curran, 19 Ohio St. 1; Cincinnati, etc., R. R. Co. v. Pontius, 19 Ohio St. 221; Union Exp. Co. v. Graham, 26 Ohio St. 595, 598. Pennsylvania: American Express Co. v. Second Nat. 13k., 69 Pa. St. 394; Camden and Amboy R. R. v. Baldauf, 16 Pa. St. 67; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Hen- derson, 51 Pa. St. 315. See Lancas- ter Co. Nat. Bk. v. Smith, 62 Pa. St. 47; Delaware, etc., Tow Boat Co. v. Starrs, 69 Pa. St. 36. South Carolina : Swindler v. Hilliard, 2 Rich. L. 286. Tennessee: Dillard v. L. and N. R. R. Co., 2 Lea, 288. Vermont: Mann v. Birchard, 40 Vt. 326. See Farmers and Mec. Bk. v. Champlain Trans'n Co., 23 Vt. 205. Virginia: Virginia and Tenn. R. R. Co. v. Sayers, 26 Gratt. 328. West Virginia: Maslin v. Bait, and Ohio R. R. Co., 14 West Va. 180; Brown v. Adams Express Co., 15 West Va. 812. Wisconsin: Black v. Goodrich Trans'n Co., 55 Wis. 319. (Gross negligence or fraud. ) Out of accord with the better and generally accepted doctrine are the courts of New York, Illinois, Louisi- ana (semble), and, perhaps, New Jer- sey. New York : A carrier may exempt himself from liability for personal injuries occasioned by its negligence to a person travelling gra- tuitously or on a drover's pass. Poucher v. New York C. R. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 263; Bissell ?;. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 442; Wells v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 181. See Per- kins c. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., ib. 196. Likewise, carriers of goods may ex- empt themselves from liability even for negligence. Knell v. U. S. and Brazil Steamship Co., 1 J. & Sp. 423; Lee v. Marsh, 43 Barb. 102; Boswell v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 5 Bos. 699; Prentice v. Decker, 49 Barb. 21. But the New York courts have narrowed their decisions down to the smallest possible scope; and unless exemption from liability for negligence is ex- pressly stipulated for, no general ex- emption, however sweeping, will be held to include losses arising from negligence. Mynard v. Syracuse, etc., R. R. Co., 71 N. Y. 180; Blair v. Erie R'y Co., 66 N. Y. 313; Magnin v. Dinsmore, 56 N. Y. 168; Holsapple v. Rome, etc., R. R. Co., 86 N. Y. 275, 277; Nicholas v. N. Y. Cent, and H. R. R. R. Co., 89 N. Y. 370. Com- pare Goldey v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 30 Pa. St. 242; Canfield v. Balti- more & Ohio R. R. Co., 93 N. Y. 532; Powell v. Same, 32 Pa. St. 414; Penn- sylvania R. R. Co. v. Butler, 57 Pa. St. 335; Empire Trans'n Co. v. Wam- sutta Oil Co., 63 Pa. St. 14. And exemptions cover only losses arising from lack of ordinary care ; not those arising from gross negligence or fraud. Westcott v. Fargo, 63 Barb. 349; Heiueman v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 31 How. Pr. 430. In Illinois "the doctrine is settled that railroad companies may by con- tract exempt themselves from liabil- ity on account of the negligence of their servants, other than that which is gross or wilful." Arnold v. Illi- nois Cent. R. R. Co., 83 111. 273, 280; Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. Read, 37 111. 484; Same v. Morrison, 19 111. 136; Western Trans'n Co. v. Newhall, 24 111. 466; Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. Adams, 42 111. 474; Adams Exp. Co. 333