Construction engineer has no power to contract verbally with a con-
tractor with reference to a written contract entered into by the
trustees of a railway nor can he modify such contract. Campbell v.
Cincinnati Southern R. Co. (Ky.). 113.
President of a railroad company has no power by virtue of his office to
bind the company by a contract for the construction of its railroad
when the same is under contract by the board of directors. Temp-
lison v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Iowa). 107.
President. Power of the president to bind the corporation. 110 n.
PARENT AND CHILD. See CHILDREN.
Contributory negligence of parent as bar to child's recovery. 80 n.
Contributory negligence. Whether the act of the mother in leaving her
child while he was eating, so that in her absence he strayed out of
the house, was or was not negligence on her part, held a question
for the jury. Reilly v. Hannibal & St. Jo. R. Co. (Mo.). 81.
Damages. Excessive. Verdict of $4500 in favor of parent for injuries
to child ten years of age held excessive, child's services not being
worth more than $1100. Hurt v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Mo.). 422.
Injuries. Opinion as to damages. In action for injury to child, parent
cannot state his opinion of amount he is damaged. Hurt v. St.
Louis, etc., R. Co. (Mo.). 422.
Negligence of parent. In an action for the death of child, where it ap-
pears that the child was killed at the same time as its mother, and
that the deaths were caused by the failure of the mother to exercise
care, there can be no recovery. Houston v. Vicksburgh, etc., R. Co.
(La.). 76.
PASSENGER. See BAGGAGE; SLEEPING CAR COMPANY; TICKETS.
Aggravation of disease. Although person had pneumonia at time of
injury and died of it, the injury was the cause of the death if it im-
paired his strength so as to render disease incurable. Louisville &
N. R. Co. v. Jones (Ala.). 417.
Alighting. Contributory negligence. Where passenger was injured in
alighting from a train, instruction that jury may take into consider-
ation the excitement under which act was done, held properly re-
fused. Covington v. Western & A. R. Co. (Ga.). 469.
Alighting. Dangerous place. Where train arrived at its destination at
midnight, and passenger, on leaving train, stepped over a high wall
where no light was furnished, he is entitled to recover for the injury
received. Smith v. Central R. & B. Co. (Ga.). 456.
Alighting. Duty to stop train reasonable time to allow passenger to
alight. 375 .
Alighting. Reasonable time. Passenger receiving injury caused by
running switch engine against passenger car is entitled to recover,
if reasonable time had not been allowed for him to alight. East
Line R. Co. v. Rushing (Tex.). 367.
Arm on window sill. Testimony that passenger rested his arm upon
the sill of a window, and that his arm was struck by some substance
from a passing train, raises presumption of want of proper care on
part of company, and in absence of explanation, verdict for plaintiff
will be sustained. Breen v. New York, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.). 523.
Arm resting on window sill: injuries to passenger riding with. 526 n.
Arrest. If passenger is disorderly policeman may arrest him notwith-
standing fact that such policeman was originally called in as the
agent of the company, and for violence incident to such arrest com-
pany is not liable. Jardine v. Cornell (N. J.). 307.
Arrest of passenger. 311 n.
Arrest. Where police officer takes disorderly person to police station,
such action will be presumed to have been done by virtue of his
official character, and company is not liable. Jardine v. Cornell
(N. J.). 307.
Assaults by fellow-passengers and trespasser. 386 n.
Assault by servants. Scope of employment.
liable to passenger for a wilful assault upon him by driver. Winne-
gar v. Central Pass. R. Co. (Ky.). 462,
Assaults by servants upon passengers. 380 n.
Assault by stranger. Person knocked off of platform and robbed by
person not shown to be servant of company, held not entitled to
recover under petition charging assault by employees. Sachrowitz
v. Atchison, etc., R. Co. (Kan.). 382.
Assault by street car driver upon passenger, causing injury resulting in
death, cause of action does not survive to administrator, but admin-
istrator may sue for violation of contract obligation. Winnegar v.
Central Pass. R. Co. (Ky.). 462.
Assault. Cause of action held to be pleaded as one in tort; gravamen
of complaint being an intentional assault and fact that plaintiff was
a trespasser constituted neither failure of proof nor material vari-
ance. Mykelby v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Minn.). 387.
Assault. Ticket agent. Person left in charge of office during absence
of regular agent is a servant of the company, which is liable for an
assault committed by him. Fick v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Wis.).
378.
Assumption of risk. Person riding on gravel train over side track is
deemed to accept the risks incident to such train and track of that
character. Rosenbaum v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co. (Minn.). 274.
Baggage on platform. Injury. Where passenger was injured by ser-
vants of company sliding trunk against him while loading it in bag-
gage car, held that the evidence proved negligence on the part of
the company's servants. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Johns (Kan.).
480.
Boarding moving street car. Although person is guilty of negligence
in attempting to get on car, if driver was notified that he had fallen
and could have avoided the injury, company is liable. Woodward
v. West Side St. R. Co. (Wis). 472.
Boarding moving street car. Condition of track. Where passenger
was injured in attempting to board moving street car, question as to
whether driver exercised due diligence, and whether car slipped
after brakes were set, owing to condition of track, is for jury. In-
struction given held erroneous, Woodward v. West Side St. R. Co.
(Wis.). 472.
Brakeman. Authority. It is within the scope of a brakeman's author-
ity to prevent passengers from getting on train and to remove
those wrongfully thereon, but if he does not exercise due care the
company is liable. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Kelley (Kan.). 281.
Burden of proof cast upon carrier in case of accident. 413 n.
Burden of proof. In case of injury caused by derailment when plain-
tiff's evidence raises presumption of negligence burden of proving
that accident was not caused by negligence rests with company.
What it should prove. Pershing v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Iowa).
405.
Changing coaches. Passenger who has taken wrong train, and is in-
formed that by taking rear car he could get off at a station beyond
and return to his destination, and attempts to pass to such car, does
so at his own risk. Stewart v. Boston & P. R. Co. (Mass.). 499.
Collision of street car with other vehicle. Where car driven with un
usual speed was struck by pole of a truck with sufficient force to
throw passenger from his seat and inflict injuries, evidence held
sufficient to raise presumption that car was driven negligently.
Hill v. Ninth Ave. St. R. Co (N. Y.) 522.
Collision presumption of negligence in case of. 399 n.
Collision. Presumption of negligence. Proof of collision injuring
passenger imposes on company burden of proving that it did not
occur by reason of failure to exercise due care. Graham v. Bur-
lington, etc., R. Co. (Minn.). 397.
Collision with other vehicles: injuries to street car passenger by. 523.
Complaint. Amendment to petition for damages for injuries sustained
by passenger concerning character of street car horses and jerk in
starting car, held not to substitute new cause of action. Dougherty
v. Missouri R. Co. (Mo.). 488.
Condition of track: evidence admissible as to, in case of accident.
404 n.
Conductor of train is only charged with duty of carrying passenger
safely to his destination, announcing arrival of train, and giving
him opportunity to leave cars. Hurt v. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co.
(Mo.). 422.
Conductor on branch road represents company as to his own route, but
not in giving information as to running of trains upon main line.
Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Gants (Kan.). 290.
Conductor. Scope of authority. Conductor represents the company
in the discharge of his functions; and in the line of his duty com-
pany is liable for any abuse of authority. Southern Kansas R. Co.
v. Rice (Kan.). 316.
Construction train. Presumption that one permitted by an employee to
ride on construction train is not lawfully there may be overcome by
special circumstances. Rosenbaum v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co. (Minn.).
Contributory negligence. Crossing track. Passenger upon leaving
train attempted to cross track which passengers had been accus-
tomed to cross, and was struck by another train, held that question
whether he exercised due care was for jury. Robostelli v. New
York & H. R. Co. (C. C.). 515.
Contributory negligence. Crossing track. Person who started to cross
double track railroad immediately after passage of one train without
looking for approach of another, held guilty of contributory negli-
gence. Allerton v. Boston & M. R. Co. (Mass.). 563.
Contributory negligence. Instruction as to effect of plaintiff's contribu-
tory negligence and the defendant's negligence, held not open to
objection that it charged that even if negligence of plaintiff as well
as defendant contributed to injury, defendant is liable. Dougherty
v. Missouri R. Co. (Mo.). 488.
Contributory negligence. Instruction in action to recover for injuries
received upon street-car, that if it appeared that accident would not
have happened if plaintiff had taken certain precautions, yet, if jury
believe he acted with reasonable care and was using all the diligence
required, held not to require a reversal as giving undue prominence
to specials acts of negligence on plaintiff's part. Dougherty v. Mis-
souri R. Co. (Mo.). 488.
Contributory negligence. Mixed freight and passenger train. Pass-
enger who sits on arm of one seat with elbow on back of the seat
is guilty of negligence contributing to injuries received through
being thrown against seat by a shock in coupling the train. Smith
v. Richmond & D. R. Co. (N. Car.). 557.
Contributory negligence. Passenger who returns to train which has
stopped to allow passengers to dine, before conductor has called
upon passengers to re-enter cars, is not guilty of negligence con-
tributing to injuries sustained before other passengers had been re-
quired to board train. Lakin v. Oregon Pac. R. Co. (Ore.). 500.
Contributory negligence. Standing on foot board of street-car. Pass-
enger standing on foot board of street-car and injured by coming
in contact with passenger standing on foot board of passing car,
held not guilty of contributory negligence. City R. Co. v. Lee
(N. J.). 566.
Contributory negligence. Standing on platform, Old lady who had
accompanied friends to station, and after bidding them good-bye,
stood for a few minutes on station platform to see train start, is not
thereby guilty of such contributory negligence as would prevent
her from recovering for injuries received. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v.
Johns (Kan.). 480.
Contributory negligence. Switching.. Passenger knowing that train is
switching and that car would probably be backed against the part
of the train to which caboose is attached and who stands up in the
car and, is thrown down and injured is guilty of contributory negli-
gence. Wallace v. Western N. Car. R. Co. (N. Car.). 553.
Crossing track. Instruction. In action for death of passenger killed
by a passing train while crossing adjoining track, a juror asked
whether the fact that the passenger had previously got off safely
on same side of train would give him right to get off there again;
court replied that this was referred to the jury, held, that the answer
was not misleading in view of previous instructions. Robostelli v.
New York & H. R. Co. (C. C.). 515.
Crowding street cars. Passengers on platform. Where a street rail-
way undertakes to carry large crowds vastly in excess of seating
capacity of cars, and cars are run so near intersection of switch that
they cannot pass safely, company is guilty of gross negligence.
Topeka City R. Co. v. Higgs (Kan.). 529.
Damages: excessive. $6933 held not excessive where passenger had
ribs broken and spine injured in accident. Houston & T. C. R. Co.
v. Lee (Tex.). 452.
Damages: exemplary. Instruction, in action for personal injuries that
facts in evidence to authorize punitive damages must be such as
would subject defendant's servant to liability to conviction for
criminal negligence, is properly refused. Augusta & S. R. Co. v.
Randall (Ga.). 439.
Damages. Occupation of plaintiff. Jury may, in estimating damages,
consider occupation of plaintiff. Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Hecht (Ind.).
Death. Proximate cause. If death of person from pneumonia is con-
tributed to or hastened through negligence of company, it is liable,
although death would in any event have supervened. Louisville &
N. R. Co. v. Jones (Ala.). 417.
Defective track. Evidence. Where train was derailed owing to a
broken rail, evidence that track, not only at the spot where the acci-
dent occurred, but at other places, was defective is inadmissible.
Pattee v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Dak.). 399.
Degree of care. Carrier of passengers is bound to exercise highest de-
gree of care for convenience and safety of passengers, and is liable
for slightest neglect. Pershing v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Iowa).
Degree of care required. To method of carrying passengers for hire
must be applied the greatest skill, care, and foresight of which car-
riers are in their nature susceptible. Topeka City R. Co. v. Higgs
(Kan.).
Degree of care. Street railways are bound to exercise the greatest skill,
care, and foresight of which they are in their nature susceptible to
avoid liability for injuries occasioned by their operation. Topeka
City R. Co. v. Higgs (Kan.). 529.
Derailment. Evidence that train was running at high speed, and that
ties were rotten and road-bed unsafe, owing to which train was
thrown from track and passenger injured, held sufficient to support
verdict for plaintiff. Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Lee (Tex.). 452.
Derailment. In action for personal injury, caused by derailment of
train, instruction that derailment proves negligence held erroneous.
Pattee v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Dak.). 399.
Derailment presumption of negligence in case of. 404 n.
Discrimination. A railroad may charge more to those paying fare on
train than it charges for tickets. State v. Hungerford (Minn.). 265.
Disease induced by injury. Plaintiff was thrown from his seat against
the stove of the car, hurting his nose and, as plaintiff claimed,
causing catarrh. Instruction as to sufficiency of evidence consid-
ered. Quackenbush v. Chicago & N. W. R. Có. (Iowa). 545.
Disease induced by injury. Sufficiency of evidence.
When verdict for
plaintiff will not be reversed as contrary to an instruction that an
expert's opinion that a result may possibly follow from a certain
cause, does not contribute sufficient evidence that such exceptional
result did in fact follow. Quackenbush v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co.
(Iowa). 545.
Diseased or disabled persons: injury to. 375 n.
Duty of carrier. The exercise of utmost foresight, knowledge, and care
is required of all carriers of passengers, and not merely of railroads
operated by steam. Dougherty v. Missouri R. Co. (Mo). 488.
Duty of company. "All possible skill and care" and "all possible fore-
sight" defined. Topeka City R. Co. v. Higgs (Kan.). ` 529.
Engineer learning road. Company is responsible to passenger for in-
juries caused through negligence of engineer placed upon engine to
"learn the road by material agent, although the latter had no
authority to employ any person. Lakin v. Oregon Pacific R. Co.
(Ore.). 500.
Evidence as to construction of car. Position of plaintiff. For purpose
of showing how injuries were received, passenger may testify as to
construction of car, and position in which she was at the time.
Lakin v. Oregon Pac. R. Ĉo. (Ore.). 500.
Evidence. Defective appliance. Engineer, in course of his narration
|