CHAPTER XXV.
LEGAL RIGHTS OF TRAVELERS.
For the information contained in this chapter the author is indebted to a well-known lawyer of New York, who has had considerable experience in suits of individuals against railway and steamship companies, and is therefore thoroughly competent to write on the subject.
"In considering the legal rights of travelers it is necessary to remember that they are not the same in all countries, nor even in different states of one country. Legal right in England may not be legal right in France or the United States, and a decision of a court in New York may be quite opposed to one in a case exactly similar in Ohio or California. I will endeavor to give a summary of decisions embodying the most important relations of the traveler to the carrying companies, and where there are two cases of similar character, that have been differently decided, I shall prefer the one from the higher court.
"One of the most frequent causes of dispute in the United States is the time for which a ticket is valid. It has been generally held that a ticket for a single trip over a railway is good for any length of time, with the understanding that when the journey begins it shall be completed in a continuous ride. This applies only to single tickets over the road of one company; when the ticket has one or more coupons attached, and is sold at a lower rate than the single fares would amount to if added together, it is liable to be refused on the ground that it is in the form of a contract that expired a certain number of days after the ticket was issued. There have been many decisions on this subject, the majority of them favoring the claims of the company against the passenger.
"An excursion or round trip ticket, sold at a reduced rate, is held to be a contract, and is worthless if not used in the time specified. It is also non-transferable, if so printed on the face, and the conductor may refuse it when offered, on the return trip, by any person other than the one who used the first half. The theory is that in consideration of the reduced rate the company should have the benefit of any chance that the original purchaser does not return within the specified time. The courts of most of the United States, and also those of England and the Continental countries, are in accord on this subject.
"A ticket marked 'good for this day only,' or 'for this train only,' was formerly held to be good for any day till used, but of late years the majority of decisions are in favor of the printed limitation, on the ground that the companies have a right to regulate their business, and that they must know how many people are to travel by a train in order to make it up properly. But in this case the purchaser of a ticket may have his money returned provided he asks for it before the departure of the train, or can show that it is the fault of the company that he has not used it.
"In regard to the validity of a ticket in the reverse direction from what it reads, there have been several decisions both ways, the passenger claiming that he had paid to be carried a given number of miles over the road and he had a right to travel either way, as he chose. A passenger on the New York and New Haven railway recovered damages for injuries received while being ejected from the cars, but it required a law-suit of five years, and repeated trials, to obtain them. He had offered a ticket from New Haven to New York while riding in the reverse direction, and was put off in consequence. In another instance a passenger from Boston to Portland sued for damages, for ejection from the train when he offered a ticket 'from Portland to Boston,' and lost his case; and the majority of the decisions in England and the United States favor this view of the subject.
"It has been held repeatedly that a passenger is entitled to a seat, and cannot be required to give up his ticket until a seat is provided, though he must show it if asked. A passenger on a New York railway found no seats in the ordinary coaches and went into the drawing-room car that formed part of the train. When called on for the extra charge for the seat he refused it, but announced his readiness to return to the ordinary coaches as soon as a place was provided for him there. Thereupon he was ejected by the porter, and he brought suit against the railway company for damages. The latter claimed it was not responsible, as the drawing-room car was the property of a private individual, and not of the railway, but the courts rejected this claim and gave damages to the passenger. Similar decisions have been made in several cases where railway and sleeping-car companies were concerned, the courts holding that the railways are responsible for the management of the cars that compose their trains, although they may not own them. This principle has been affirmed by the Court of Appeals of New York, and by the Supreme Court of the United States.
"It was formerly held that a conductor must allow a passenger to ride when he had lost his ticket, providing he gave reasonable proof of having purchased one before entering the train, but of late years the courts are inclined to the opinion that it is the passenger's place to take care of his ticket, and it is unfair to ask the conductor to hold a court of inquiry concerning it. Besides, the company has no protection against carrying the person who finds the ticket. In Illinois a passenger in a Pullman car lost his ticket after showing it to the porter; the conductor came around before the train started and demanded the ticket, or its equivalent, and refused to take the porter's word about it, whereupon the passenger went to the ticket-office and procured a certificate to the effect that he had bought a ticket. This the conductor refused, and compelled the passenger to ride in the ordinary coach all night. A jury gave $3,000 damages to the passenger, but a higher court said this amount was excessive, and the man was only entitled to what he had paid for the ticket, and moderate compensation for the inconvenience of being deprived of a place in the sleeping-car.
"There have been frequent lawsuits involving the rights of persons traveling on free passes; the railway pass usually bears on its back a printed notice that 'the person accepting this free pass thereby assumes all risk of accidents,' etc., etc. The courts have generally held that this notice is of no consequence, and the holders of free passes have collected damages for injury to their persons, or loss of property, while using said tickets. The theory is that the pass is granted for some consideration which is the equivalent of the money that would be required to purchase a ticket at the office, and therefore the company is liable, and it has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. Since these decisions, some of the railways print the notice in the form of a contract or agreement, which the passenger signs before delivering the pass to the conductor; no suit under this form of pass has been reported, and the companies think they could not be mulcted under it, as they could show a specific agreement on the part of the passenger not to ask for damages in any event. A tramp, or other person, stealing a ride on a train has no redress for damages, nor any other rights which the company is bound to respect.