Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/591

 Latest Important Cases Agency.

See Motor Vehicles.

Bailments. Liability of Carrier for Loss of Passenger's Hand Baggage—

gence in delivering her suit case when it was neither locked nor fastened except by the catches. Contributory negligence, however, in its ordinary sense, has no

Contributory Negligence.

N. Y.

application to a bailment made under Plaintiff placed a number of ﬁnger

rings and some money in the bottom of

the circumstances of this case, because

the plaintiﬁ proved delivery to the de

a dress suit case containing her necessary

fendant and failure on its part to rede

wardrobe and took it with her on a

liver to her on demand. That made out

train.

a prima facie case, as we have held, and

The suit case was not locked,

but was fastened with a catch on either side of the lock. She purchased a ticket in New York for passage on defendant's

called on the defendant to explain why it did not restore the property.

So far

as appears it may still have the articles

road into another state, where she had

in its possession, and it cannot justify

to change cars, and when nearing the station a trainman, at her request, as sisted her in making the change by taking the dress suit case, which he car

detention because when received they were not securely locked in the suit case. . . . "The law does not require a bailor in

tied to the other end of the car, where it remained ten or ﬁfteen minutes, the only

possible explanation of the latter in

time it was out of the plaintiff's posses sion, and when she again opened it the rings and the money were gone. Her ticket contained a printed condition pur porting to limit the company's liability for loss of baggage to necessary wearing

apparel of the value-‘of $100.

The de

fendant introduced no evidence and the case rested on the foregoing facts, with additional evidence tending to show that the trainman in taking charge of the

an action against a bailee to answer a advance of its being made, and which in fact might never be made. Such an

action rests on the presumption arising from delivery, demand and refusal, with

out aﬂirmative proof of negligence in any respect. On the other hand, in an action for negligence resulting in per sonal injury, there must be affirmative evidence that the injury was caused solely by the negligence of the defendant

plaintiff's luggage to assist her was act ing within the line of his duties and that the articles lost were suitable to a traveler in the plaintiff's circumstances.

which includes proof that the plaintiff did not contribute to the accident by his own act or default. The distinction between the two classes of actions is very clear and the reason for shifting

In Hasbrouck v. N. Y. Central &Hud son River R. Co., decided June 13, the

the burden of proof as to contributory negligence so obvious as to require no

New York Court of Appeals found for the plaintiff-respondent, holding that she could recover. The Court (Vann, J.) said: — “Although the question was not raised during the trial it is suggested that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negli

further discussion." After saying that the printed condi tion in the ticket related only to baggage which had been regularly checked and

not to luggage, and that the Public Service Commission Law limiting the

liability in such cases to $150 had no