lows: "While the law exacts from the carrier of passengers the utmost care and skill, it refuses to take into consideration damages remotely resulting from a breach of their contract or neglect of their duty." Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Barker, 4 Colo. 344. Connecticut. The principle is, that in the case of common carriers of passengers, the highest degree of care which a reasonable man would use, is required." Derwort v. Loomer, 21 Conn. 253; Hall v. Connecticut River Steamboat Co., 13 Conn. 319. Delaware. Common carriers of passengers are responsible for any negligence resulting in injury to them, and are required, in the preparation, conduct, and management of their means of conveyance, to exercise every degree of care, diligence, and skill which a reasonable man would use under such circumstances." Flinn v. Philadelphia, etc., R. R. Co., 1 Houst. (Del.) 499. England. "Every person who contracts for the conveyance of others, is bound to use the utmost care and skill; and if through any erroneous judgment on his part any mischief is occasioned, he must answer for the consequences." Jackson v. Tollett, 3 Eng. C. L. 233; Crofts v. Waterhouse, 11 Eng. C. L. 119. Georgia. In Georgia by the code it is enacted: "A carrier of passengers juries to the person after having used such diligence." Sec. 2064. See Craw- Indiana. In Indiana, in an early case, the Supreme Court said: "As to passenger carriers by State, the law is well settled: they are liable for the utmost care of very cautious persons. Railroads are not to be distinguished from stage-coach proprietors in the degree of diligence required and extent of liability incurred." Gillenwater v. Madison and Indianapolis R. R. Co., 5 Ind. 339. "Railroad companies are liable as public carriers of passengers for injuries resulting from neglect to use the utmost care of cautious persons.' Thayer . St. Louis, etc., Ř. R. Co., 22 Ind. 26. "Carriers of passengers are only liable for negligence, and are not insurers of the safety of their passengers, as they are of goods and the baggage of passengers. But they are required to use the highest degree of care to secure the safety of passengers, and are responsible for the slightest neglect, if an injury is caused thereby. Jeffersonville R. R. Co. v. Hendricks' Admx., 26 Ind. 231. Approved in Sherlock. Alling, 44 Ind. 201. "The company is not an insurer of the absolute safety of the passenger, as it is of goods which it undertakes to carry. It does, however, in legal contemplation, undertake to exercise the highest degree of care to secure the safety of the passenger, and is responsible for the slightest neglect resulting in injury to the passenger; and this care applies alike to the safe and proper construction and equipment of the road, the employment of skilful and prudent operatives, and the faithful performance by them of their respective duties." Ohio, etc., R. R. Co. v. Dickerson, 59 Ind. 321. See Grand Rapids, etc., R. R. Co. v. Boyd, 65 Ind. 526. 66 Illinois. "We do not question the doctrine, where a carrier undertakes to ordinary, no one would think the court should give an explanation of it. So, where the phrase, 'extraordinary care' was used, the jury could not fail to see that something more than ordinary care was required, something extra, beyond that degree. It does not differ from the phrase, greatest care,' the highest degree of care, and so the jury would understand it." T. W. & W. R. R. Co. v. Baddeley, 54 Ill. 24. "While courts, in announcing the rule governing common carriers of persons, have said that they must be held to the utmost degree of care, vigilance and precaution, it must be understood that the rule does not require such a degree of vigilance as will be wholly inconsistent with the mode of conveyance adopted, and render its use impracticable. Nor does it require the utmost degree of care which the human mind is capable of inventing." Fuller v. Talbott, 23 Ill. 303 (2d ed.). Approved in P. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 56 Ill. 138. lowa. "That the proprietors of stage-coaches which ply between different places, and carry passengers for hire and compensation, are responsible for all accidents and injuries happening to the persons of the passengers which could have been prevented by human care and foresight." Funk v. Coe, 4 Greene (Iowa), 557; approved in Russ v. Steamboat War Eagle, 14 Iowa, 363. Kansas.- "At the request of the plaintiff below, the court instructed the jury that, if the defendant could have prevented the accident by the utmost human sagacity or foresight, with respect to their track, then the defendant is liable.' This is established law. The defendant sought to have it explained to the jury by requesting the court to tell them that the utmost human sagacity required of the defendant did not require of the defendant to take such extraordinary measures in constructing, operating, and maintaining its railroad as are not and have not been in use in the constructing, operating or maintaining of railroads.' This the court refused to give, and its refusal is assigned as error, and we are asked to correct it. We know of no reason peculiar to this State why human life and safety are not as valuable as elsewhere; at any rate, it is not the province of courts to cheapen it, by construing away established principles, laid down to make life secure." Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Hand, 7 Kansas, 392. 66 Kentucky. In this case the appellants are common carriers of passengers. They do not undertake absolutely to insure the safety of those subjecting themselves to their control; but the law holds them to the strictest responsibility for care, vigilance, and skill on the part of themselves and those employed by them.' Sherley v. Billings, 8 Bush. 151. Louisiana. "If the jury believe from the evidence that the defendants are a railroad company, acting in their transportations by the dangerous and powerful agency of steam, public policy and safety require that they be held to the greatest possible care and diligence, and any negligence in such cases may well deserve the epithet of gross." New Orleans, etc., R. R. Co. v. Bailey, 40 Miss. 458. "It is, moreover, an implied condition of their contract with each passenger, that the latter shall not be put in jeopardy of life or limb, by any fault, even the slightest, of the servants of the company." Black v. Carrollton R. R. Co., 10 La. An. 38. Maine. The head note to the case of Edwards v. Lord, 49 Me. 279, is as follows: "Common carriers of passengers are bound to use greater than ordinary care-such care as is used by very cautious persons; and if a passenger receives an injury, which any reasonable skill and care on their part could have prevented, they are liable therefor." Maryland. "In the case of the Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Worthington, 21 Md. 275, where a passenger sued to recover damages resulting from an accident to the train in which he was riding, it was held, that in order to exempt the defendant from liability it was bound to exercise the utmost care which human prudence and foresight could employ.' Or, in other words, the legal duty growing out of the undertaking of the defendant, as a carrier of passengers, imposed on it the highest degree of diligence and care, and for a failure or omission to perform this duty, in any particular, the defendant was responsible." B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Breinig, 25 Md. 387; see B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Milles, 29 Md. 252. Massachusetts.-"The result to which we have arrived, from the examination of the case before us, is this: That carriers of passengers for hire are bound to use the utmost care and diligence in the providing of safe, sufficient and suitable coaches, harnesses, horses and coachmen, in order to prevent those injuries which human care and foresight can guard against," etc. Ingalls v. Bills, 9 Met. 15. "The carriers of passengers are not, like the carriers of goods, insurers against everything but the act of God and public enemies. But they are bound to exercise reasonable care, according to the nature of their contract; and as their contract involves the safety of the lives and limbs of their passengers, the law requires the highest degree of care which is consistent with the nature of their undertaking." Warren v. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 8 Allen, 233. Minnesota. "As such carrier [of passengers], the law imposes on the carrier the utmost human care and foresight, and makes him responsible in damages for the slightest neglect." Johnson v. Winona, etc., R. R. Co., 11 Minn. 303. Mississippi. "Persons having charge of engines and locomotives on railroads are bound to manage them with the utmost care, and a failure to do so is negligence, in the law, for which the railroad company is responsible, if damage ensue to the property of another from such neglect so to manage their engines." Mississippi R. R. Co. v. Miller, 40 Miss. 48. Again, it is a well settled rule of law and highly applicable to engines and locomotives on railroads, that persons having charge of instruments of great danger are bound to manage them with the utmost care." Vicksburg & Jackson R. R. Co. v. Patton, 31 Miss. 197. Missouri. The degree of responsibility, therefore, to which carriers of passengers are subjected is not ordinary care, which will make them liable only for ordinary neglect, but extraordinary care, which renders them liable for slight neglect. Public policy and safety require that they should be held to the greatest possible care and diligence, and that the personal safety of the passengers should not be left to the sport of chance or the negligence of careless agents." Huelsenkamp v. Citizens' Ry. Co., 37 Mo. 546; S. C., 34 Mo. 45; approved Liddy v. St. Louis R. R. Co., 40 Mo. 506. Nebraska.- "The exception to this rule in the case of the carrier of passengers is, that he is liable only where the injury has arisen from his own negligence; he does not warrant the safety of passengers, but, as far as human care and foresight go, he will provide for their safe conveyance; but if he is in the least degree negligent he is liable, because the law requires him to do all that care and skill can do for the safety of his passengers." McClary v. Sioux City, etc., R. R. Co., 3 Neb. 54. New Hampshire.-"In case of passenger-carriers, though they are not warrantors, like carriers of merchandise, the rule of law is very stringent, requiring the use of the utmost care and diligence in providing coaches and other carriages, steady horses, and competent and skilful persons to manage them, and making the proprietors liable for the smallest negligence in any of these things." Clark v. Barrington, 41 N. H. 51. "Upon grounds of public policy also, the carrier of passengers is bound to exercise the highest degree of care and diligence. To his diligence and fidelity are entrusted the lives and safety of large numbers of human beings. He assumes the task voluntarily, and for it receives a sufficient compensation; and we think it very apparent that in no case of the bailment of goods is there so great and imperative a demand for the utmost skill and diligence as from the carrier of passengers; especially is this true when the passengers are carried upon railroads by steam, for then in consequence of the greater speed the hazards to life and limb are largely increased." Taylor v. Railway, 48 N. H. 314. New York. In New York it was said: "Having thus provided the means of transport, they are in like manner bound to use the utmost care and diligence in the managing, directing, and using those means, so that, so far as human care and foresight can go, they may guard against injury. Having done all that human care and foresight can do, and loss happening, they are not liable." Caldwell v. Murphy, 1 Duer, 233; S. C., 11 N. Y. 416. "The carrier. . . is bound to use all precautions, as far as human care and foresight will go, for the safety of his passengers." Hegeman v. Western R. R. Corporation, 13 N. Y. 24. "Passenger carriers bind themselves to carry safely those whom they take into their coaches, as far as human care and foresight will go, that is, to the utmost care and diligence of very cautious persons." Brown v. N. Y. Central R. R., 18 N. Y. 408; approved, Meverick. Eighth Ave. R. R. Co., 36 N. Y. 381; see Carroll. Staten Island R. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 126. "By these authorities it is established that the carrier of passengers, especially in vehicles and conveyances propelled by steam, where the consequences of an accident from defective machinery is almost certainly fatal to human life, is bound to use every precaution which human skill, care, and foresight can provide, and to exercise similar care and foresight in ascertaining and adopting new improvements to secure additional protection." Caldwell v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 47 N. Y. 288; McPadden v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co., 44 N. Y. 478. The syllabus to the case of Flint v. Norwich & New York Transportation Company is as follows: "The owner of a steamboat, who undertakes to transport a passenger thereon, for hire, is bound to exercise the utmost vigilance and care in maintaining order and guarding such passenger against violence which may reasonably be anticipated, or naturally be expected to occur, in view of the number and character of other passengers on board." Ohio. "If the plaintiff was an ordinary passenger the defendant is held to use the highest possible degree of care and skill which human prudence is capable of making use of." Manville, C. & Z. R. R. Co., 2 West. L. M. 495; see Cleveland, etc., R. R. Co. v. Curran, 19 Ohio St. 1. Pennsylvania. "A carrier of passengers is bound to omit no precaution that may conduce to their safety." New Jersey R. R. Co. v. Kennard, 21 Pa. St. 204. 'But though in legal contemplation they do not warrant the absolute safety of their passengers, they are yet bound to the exercise of the utmost diligence and care. The slightest neglect against which human prudence and foresight may guard, and by which hurt or loss is occasioned, will render them liable to answer in damages." Laing v. Colder, 8 Pa. St. 482. "It is, indeed, laid down, and is undoubted law, that the proprietors of a railroad as passenger carriers are bound to the most exact care and diligence, not only in the management of their train and cars, but also in the structure and care of their track, and in all the arrangements necessary to the safety of passengers. They are held to the strictest responsibility for care, vigilance and skill on the part of themselves, and all persons employed by them." Sullivan v. Philadelphia, etc., R. R. Co., 30 Pa. St. 236. Tennessee." But the common carrier of passengers does not warrant their safety at all events, but his liability as to them goes to the extent that he possesses competent skill, and that so far as human care and foresight can go he will transport them safely." Railroad v. Mitchell, 11 Heisk, 403; see N. & C. R. R. Co. v. Messino, 1 Sneed, 220. Texas.—“A railroad company, in the conduct and management of its trains, is required to employ skilful and competent agents, and to use such means and foresight in providing for the safety of passengers as persons of the greatest care and prudence usually exercise in similar cases; and should an injury result to a passenger from a failure to use such a degree of care and prudence, the company will be responsible for such injury.. Houston, etc., R. R. Co. v. Gorbett, 49 Tex. 576. "A passenger on a railroad train has, by reason of the risk naturally incident to this mode of travel, the right to demand of the company for his safe passage that high degree of care and skill which very cautious persons generally, in their line of business, are accustomed to use, under similar circumstances, to prevent danger.” "Railroad companies, however, are not insurers of the safety of their passengers further than could be required by the exercise of such a high degree of foresight as to possible danger, and such a high degree of prudence in guarding against them, as would be used by very cautious, prudent, and competent persons under similar circumstances." International & Great North. R. R. Co. v. Halloren, 53 Tex.; S. C., 3 Am. and Eng. R. R. Cas. 343; see note to Price v. St. Louis, etc., R. R. Co., 3 Am. and Eng. R. R. Cas. 365. Vermont. "In any business involving the personal safety and lives of others, what is due care, reasonable diligence? Clearly nothing less than the most watchful care and the most active diligence; anything short of this is negligence and carelessness, and would furnish clear ground of liability if an injury was thereby sustained." Hadley v. Cross, 34 Vt. 588. Virginia.-"Passenger carriers are liable for injuries resulting even from the slightest negligence on the part of the coachman or proprietor of the stage, and that they are bound to use the utmost care and diligence of cautious persons to prevent injury to passengers." Farish & Co. v. Reigle, 11 Gratt. 700. "They are bound to the most exact care and diligence not only in the management of the trains and cars, but also in the structure and care of the track, and all the subsidiary arrangements necessary to the safety of the passengers." Virginia Central R. R. Co. v. Sanger, 15 Gratt. 236. Wisconsin.-The court adopted the doctrine in section 24 of Shearman and Redfield on Negligence. Butler v. Milwaukee, etc., R. R. Co., 28 Wis. 498; see Lucas v. Milwaukee, etc., R. R. Co., 33 Wis. 41. Text-Books. "We have already endeavored to show the difference in respect to the degree of responsibility between common carriers of passengers and common carriers of goods; and, in so doing, it was stated to be well established that the former are not, like the latter, insurers against all injuries by the act of God or by the public enemy. It was, moreover, stated, that the nature of their undertaking was to carry 'safely and securely,' and that although they did not thus impliedly warrant the safety of the passengers at all events, yet they were bound to the utmost care and skill in the performance of their duty. The term here used expresses the idea of something beyond ordinary care, which the law considers the limit of liability to which carriers of goods for hire, who are not common carriers, are held. The degree of their responsibility, therefore, to which carriers of passengers are subjected, is not ordinary care, which will make them liable only for ordinary neglect, but extraordinary care, which renders them liable for slight neglect.' Angell on Carriers, sec. 568 (4th ed.). "Out of special regard for human life, and acting upon the presumption that every man who commits his person to the charge of others expects from them a higher degree of care for his bodily safety than they would bestow upon the preservation of his property, the law very wisely exacts from a common carrier of passengers for hire the utmost care and skill which prudent men are accustomed to use under similar circumstances. This rule has been constantly applied to the proprietors of stage coaches and steamboats, |