"Damages have been recovered in several instances for injuries received in railway stations before the intending passenger had entered the train, or even purchased a ticket, and they have also been recovered for injuries received in the station after the completion of the journey. In all these cases it was shown that the person was in the station either for the intention of traveling, or after the completion of the journey, and in one case where the plaintiff could not establish this fact he lost his case.
"In a case where a passenger in an omnibus was injured by the upsetting of the vehicle, through the driver's carelessness, damages were given by a jury. The omnibus belonged to the railway company, and was run by them between the station and neighboring village. The passenger had no ticket, as tickets were only sold at the station, whither he was going, but it was held that his journey began when he entered the company's omnibus with the intention of traveling by the railway.
"The right of a passenger to protection from drunken and disorderly persons, and from ruffians in general, has been established. The courts have decided that the company through its agents must use 'due diligence' for the protection of peaceable passengers, and unless it does so it is liable. A good illustration is that of a railway in Mississippi where some rowdies beat a passenger severely, and the latter sued the company for negligence. It was shown that the conductor simply asked the rowdies not to get him into trouble, and then left the car; the court held that the company was liable for his failure to use due diligence in protecting the passenger, and gave the latter $6,000 damages, but if the conductor had stopped the train, and called the brakemen and passengers to assist him, the damages would not have been allowed, even if the conductor had failed in his effort at protection.
"Suits have arisen out of the loss of property by passengers in sleeping-cars, and in most instances the company is not held responsible, as it is not a common carrier, and the court rules that it is the passenger's duty to take care of his own personal valuables. The same rulings have been made in several cases where property has been lost in an ordinary passenger-car and suit brought against the company, the courts holding that when a man chooses to take care of his valise or hand-bag it is not in the care of the company. So, also, in instances where passengers have been robbed while on railway trains, the courts have exonerated the companies, except where absolute negligence has been shown. In one case some ruffians entered a car and robbed a passenger of $15,000 in U.S. bonds; the courts held that the company was not responsible, since $15,000 was altogether too large an amount of valuables to be carried about one's person, and before the company was to be held liable it should have been notified, and the property intrusted to its care.
"Responsibility for baggage has given rise to a great many suits on the part of passengers, and the decisions are numerous and varied. In general it is held that a passenger can recover for the loss of personal property such as he wishes to use and actually needs on his journey, 'in reasonable amount.' Most of the railway companies in America stipulate on their tickets that the passenger is limited to one hundred dollars in value and one hundred pounds in weight of baggage, and if he has more than one hundred dollars' worth he must declare it, and pay in addition at the rate of a single fare for every five hundred dollars in value. Extra trunks are usually paid for by the piece, rather than by the weight or value, and checks given accordingly.
"In a suit growing out of the loss of baggage the passenger is required to tell the contents of his trunk, and the jury must decide whether the missing articles belonged properly to the traveler's outfit. In one case a man lost a trunk which contained his 'wardrobe.' When he stated, which he did very reluctantly, that the trunk contained sixteen coats of different sizes, and no other garments, the jury thought it a remarkable wardrobe for a traveler, and he lost his case. Money, watches, and jewelry are admitted to be a part of one's baggage, but they must be carefully packed, and not excessive in amount. Discrimination is made in favor of money, as most civilized nations have recognized this article as a requisite of travel. Surgeons' instruments, law books, and papers for a lawyer going to attend court, dresses of actors and actresses, uniforms of soldiers, and in general anything that may be classed under the head of 'tools of a trade or profession' are legitimate baggage, and form a good basis of a suit for damages in case of loss. A gambler once brought suit for the loss of his trunk, which contained a roulette table and other paraphernalia of his 'profession,' together with two revolvers and a bowie-knife. The court decided against him on the ground that his occupation was contra bonos mores, and the railway company could not be held to a responsibility for anything intended to demoralize the community.
"Where there is clear proof of the loss of a trunk a railway company will generally pay without litigation, if the claimant is a person of respectability, and there is reason to believe that the statement of contents is correct, provided also that the amount claimed is not enormous. It is better for the company to pay one or two hundred dollars in a genuine case than to go to the courts, where it would be pretty sure to be defeated, but there are some companies that make it a rule never to pay until sued, on the ground that they frighten away a great many timid persons, as well as others who cannot afford the time for a lawsuit.
"A famous case, involving the question of what is necessary to one's personal comfort on a journey, is that of a Russian countess against the New York Central railway. One of her trunks, containing laces to the value of $200,000, was opened while she was traveling from New York to Niagara Falls, and about 200 yards of lace were stolen. It was antique and costly, and valued at $80,000; the trunk was old and worn, and its exterior gave no indication of the wealth within. The Countess sued for the value of the lace, and the company defended the suit on the ground that the lady had no right to carry such property in a common trunk, and that it was her duty to inform the company, through its agent, the baggage-master, of the value of the trunk, and pay the proper price for its insurance. The court held that she was not bound to volunteer information, but it was her duty to answer all proper questions concerning her baggage, and to pay whatever was demanded as extra freight. But as nobody had questioned her she was not in the wrong; considering her station in life the laces were necessary to her comfort, and she was awarded $30,000 in compensation for her loss.
"Suits for lost baggage are far less common in Europe than in America. They generally result in favor of the companies, especially where two or more are concerned. Between Paris and London losses occur from time to time, and when the passenger seeks redress he is told that he must show whether the loss took place in France, England, or on the channel, so that the responsibility can be fixed. Of course he can rarely do so; all he knows is that his trunk started from one end of the route and failed to arrive at the other; the company that took it swears it delivered it safely to the other, while the latter swears that it never received it. The unlucky passenger gets the worst of it, and the matter is complicated by having different languages, laws, and customs to contend with. The courts generally take the side of the companies by throwing the burden of proof on the loser; a similar juggle is not unknown in America, as the patrons of freight, express, and transportation lines in general can testify. A parcel or a box will be lost between New York and San Francisco; the shipper holds a receipt or a bill of lading from the company to whom he delivered it in New York, and it is clearly evident that he can know nothing about the movements of his property after it left his hands. But when he asks for redress he is told to 'prove where the loss occurred and let us know who is responsible.'
"Most of the Continental lines of railway have a fixed tariff for payment for lost baggage, and on proof of disappearance of a trunk or a satchel they pay with reasonable promptness. Baggage is so well cared for on the Continent that losses are rare, but the complaints are not infrequent of robberies from trunks while in transit. Travelers on their way from Italy to England sometimes find that their baggage, which was booked through, has been opened while on the road, and valuables abstracted; suspicion points directly to the railway servants, but when a sufferer asks the railway companies to pay him he is met with the response that he must prove on what road the theft occurred, and must also name the man or men concerned in it. As he is unable to do this he loses his time as well as his property, and his principal consolation is to write an account of the affair to the London Times or some other English newspaper.