9. Injury to consignee-Contributory
negligence-Duty of consignee to dis-
cover defects in car.

In an action by a consignee for in-
juries received from a defective door
on the car from which he was unload-
ing ice, it was not negligence for plain-
tiff to have failed to discover all of
the defects in the door and to have
suspended the unloading until, on his
complaint, defendant had repaired the
door. Maher v. Chicago, M. & St. P.
Ry. Co., 278 Fed. 431 (1921). 21:371-388

that one of the supporting hooks could
jump off the rail, would justify a find-
ing that defendant failed to furnish a
door that was in a reasonably safe con-
dition. Maher v. Chicago, M. & St. P.
R. Co., 278 Fed. 431 (1921). 21:371-388

12. Intrastate shipment-Limitation of
liability for negligence.

Under the statutes of Virginia an at-
tempt by a carrier to limit its liability
for its own negligence in the handling
of an intrastate shipment is void.
Adams Exp. Co. v. Allen, 125 Va. 530,
100 S. E. 473 (1919)........21:223-241

13. Negligent delay in shipment of ar-
ticle-Damages recoverable.
Where the nature of the article and
the circumstances of the shipment of
hog cholera serum were such as to
charge a carrier with general damages
for negligence in failure to transport it
promptly, and the damage naturally
resulting from such failure was the
loss of the hogs for the treatment of
which it was intended, it was unneces-
sary to render the carrier liable for
the loss of such hogs, that the number
which might be lost should be known
to the carrier or that, at the time the
shipment was made, it should actually
have considered such damages. Adams
Exp. Co. v. Allen, 125 Va. 530, 100 S.
E. 473 (1919)
..21:223-241

14.

- Presumption of knowledge of
intended use of hog cholera serum.
Where hog cholera serum was given
by the state agricultural department
to an express company for shipment
to an individual, and the importance
of prompt transportation by a certain
train on the same day was urged upon
defendant's agent, it must be assumed,
in the absence of any showing to the
contrary, that defendant had knowl-
edge that the serum was intended for
use as a preventive treatment of hogs
for the disease of hog cholera. Adams
Exp. Co. v. Allen, 125 Va. 530, 100 S. E.
473 (1919)
.21:223-241

15.

General and special damages
-Failure promptly to transport hog
cholera serum.

Where the purpose for which hog
cholera serum was intended to be used
by the consignee was the ordinary and
only purpose for which such serum is
used and that purpose was actually or
constructively known to the defendant
at the time the contract of carriage
was made, the damages for delay in
the shipment are general and not spe-
cial, and are such as would naturally
arise from failure to receive the serum

promptly. Adams Exp. Co. v. Allen,
125 Va. 530, 100 S. E. 473 (1919)....
21:223-241

16. Shipping Contract-Limitation of
liability.

Where the sum of $56.75 was en-
tered in an express receipt as the
amount of the C. O. D. charges to be
collected and there was no insertion
of the words "not exceeding $50'' as
the value by which the rate of charge
for transportation was to be fixed, the
contract did not show that there was
an attempt to limit the liability of the
carrier on such shipment to the sum
of $50. Adams Exp. Co. v. Allen, 125
Va. 530, 100 S. E. 473 (1919).....

21:223-241

CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS.

Annotation: Liability of carrier for
injury to passenger by derailment of
train
21:112-137
Annotation: Negligence of carrier
in maintenance of station comforts and
facilities as actionable.....21:171-183
Annotation: Carrier's liability for
baggage checked for transportation un-
accompanied by passenger...21:184-194

Annotation: Limitation of liability
of carrier for loss of property from
check room
.21:195-199

Annotation: Injury to person board-
ing or alighting from street car by
operation of door or steps of car.....
21:706-728

Annotation: Liability of street rail-
way company for injury to passenger
due to jerks or jolts of car.. 21:820-854

was

1. Baggage-Liability for loss when
not accompanied by passenger.
Where plaintiff, desiring to take a
through train over defendant's road to
her destination in Michigan,
obliged to proceed first to Cincinnati,
Ohio, because the through train did
not stop at her station, purchased a
ticket to Cincinnati and checked her
trunk thereto, intending to recheck it
there for her destination, and the trunk
was stolen before leaving the initial
point, she was entitled to recover
therefor though she did not use the
ticket to Cincinnati but proceeded
there by a more convenient means and
there purchased and used a ticket over
defendant's road to her destination.
Caine v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Ry.
Co., 217 Mich. 232, 185 N. W. 765
(1921)
21:184-194

2. Injury to passenger-Actions-In
structions Unusual starting of car.
In an action by a street car passen-
ger to recover for injuries received
due to a sudden jerk of the car, an
instruction which required the jury to
find that defendant's servants caused
or permitted the car "to be suddenly
and violently started and jerked for-
ward with such force" as to throw
someone who was riding on the inside
against the glass door breaking the
glass and causing the glass to strike
plaintiff, was sufficient to require the
jury to find that the jerk was unusual
or extraordinary. Laycock v. United
Rys. Co. of St. Louis, Mo.
S. W. 91, rev'g Mo. App.
S. W. 883 (1921)....

3.

-

235

227

.21:820-855

When definition of "acci-
dent" not required.

Evidence, in an action for personal
injuries received by plaintiff due to
the premature closing of doors and
raising of the step of defendant's

law in sitting in the carrier's waiting
room beyond the departure of her train
where she did so in reliance upon the
time as shown by the clock maintained
by the carrier for the information of
passengers. Louisville & N. R. Co. v.
Clark, 205 Ala. 152, 87 So. 676 (1920)
21:171-183

9.

- Delay-Continuance of journey
beyond railroad destination.

In an action by a passenger for dam-
ages resulting from delay in transport-
ing her to her destination, where the
evidence failed to show that defend-
ants were informed that her journey
was to be continued from her destina-
tion on the railroad to a point 25 miles
into the country, it was error to refuse
to instruct the jury that defendants
would not be liable for any damages
resulting from exposure, etc., on such
continuation of her journey due to a
change in the weather which would
have been avoided but for the delay.
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Clark, 205
Ala. 152, 87 So. 676 (1920)..21:171-183

10.
Damages-Elements of recov-
ery on contract for transportation
of passenger.

In an action for damages resulting
to a passenger from missing her train
at a railroad junction due to defend-
ants' clock in waiting room registering
the time incorrectly, the damages re-
coverable under a count based on vio-
lation of contract are for inconvenience
and physical suffering and consequent
sickness, suffered as a proximate con-
sequence of being left at the station
at the time and under the circum-
stances indicated. Louisville & N. R.
Co. v. Clark, 205 Ala. 152, 87 So. 676
(1920)
21:171-183

cover therefor only when he has given
the carrier notice of the facts of such
peculiar circumstances. Louisville &
N. R. Co. v. Clark, 205 Ala. 152, 87 So.
676 (1920)
21:171-183

12.

In an action for damages resulting
to a passenger from missing a train
at a junction point due to the clock
in defendants' waiting room being
slow, the defendants should be held
responsible, under a count based upon
negligence, for all the consequences
which a prudent and experienced man,
fully acquainted with all the circum-
stances which in fact existed, whether
they could have been ascertained by
reasonable diligence or not, would, at
the time of the negligent act, have
thought reasonably possible to follow,
if they had occurred to his mind.
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Clark, 205 Ala.
152, 87 So. 676 (1920)......21:171-183

13. Evidence-Sufficiency as to stop-
ping street car to take on passengers.
In an action for personal injuries
received by a passenger while attempt-
ing to board defendant's street car,
due to a premature closing of the
doors and raising of the step, evi-
dence examined and held conclusive
that the car stopped at the usual place,
that the doors were opened, and that
plaintiff attempted to enter the car
while it was at rest. Maloney v.
United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, Mo.
237 S. W. 509 (1921)...21:706-729