PART IV. J LIABILITY FOR TORTS OF AGENTS. [§ 347. carrier is liable for every conceivable wrongful act done to a passenger by its train-bands and other employes while they are engaged in transporting him ; no matter how wilful and ma- licious the act may be, or how plainly may be apparent from its nature that it could not have been done in furtherance of the carrier's business. The rule limiting the responsibility of the master to acts of his servants done within the scope of the servants' employment, does not apply to the relations between common carriers and passengers. 1 A carrier's liability extends even further. He is bound to use every endeavor to protect his passengers, as long as they are under his charge, from the assaults of persons other than his own servants, for instance, fellow-passengers. And if his servants fail to use their best endeavors to protect passengers, the carrier will be responsible. 2 1 Stewart v. Brooklyn and Cross- town R. R. Co., 90 N. Y. 588 (prac- tically overruling Isaacs v. Third Av. R. R. Co., 47 N. Y. 122); Pendleton v. Kinsley, 3 Cliff. 416; Goddard v. Grand Trunk Railway, 57 Me. 202; Bryant b. Rich, 106 Mass. 180; Chi- cago and Eastern R. R. Co. v. Flex- man, 103 111. 546; Hanson v. Euro- pean, etc., R. Co., 62 Me. 84; Craker v. Chicago and X. W. R'y Co., 36 Wis. 657; Passenger R. R. Co. v. Young, 21 Ohio St. 518; Terre Haute and I. R. R. Co. ». Jackson, 81 Ind. 19; Jeffersonville R. R. Co. v. Rog- ers, 38 Ind. 116; Indianapolis, P. and C. R. R. Co. v. Anthony, 43 Ind. 183; Terre Haute and I. R. R. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 47 Ind. 79; New Orleans, St. Louis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Burke, 53 Miss. 201; Nieto v. Clark, 1 Cliff. 145; Sherleyw. Billings, 8 Bush (Ky.), 147; Moore o. FitchburgR. R. Co., 4 Gray, 465; Lampkin v. R. R. Co., 106 Ala. 287; cf. Perkins i>. Missouri, etc., R. R. Co., 55 Nev. 201; Smith v. Nor- folk & W. R. R. Co., 48 W. Ya. 69; Williams v. Gill, Rec'r, 122 N. C. 967; Trabing u. Calif. Nav. & Imp't Co., 121 Cal. 137. But see Allegheny R. R. Co. v. McLain, 91 Pa. St. 422. Nor, on the other hand, will it in all cases protect the corporation that the em- ploye in committing the tort acted in good faith. Thus in Palmeri v. Man- hattan R'y Co., 133 N. Y. 261, a ticket agent arrested a passenger, thinking he had passed a counter- feit coin; the company was held lia- ble. Compare Mulligan v. N. Y., etc., R'y Co., 129 N. Y. 506. But, of course, the conduct of the passenger may be a good defence; e. g., a railroad com- pany is not liable to a passenger for an injury done him by the conductor in self-defence. New Orleans, etc., R. R. Co. v. Jopes, 142 U. S. 18. 2 Pittsburgh, Ft. W. and C. R'y Co. v. Hinds, 53 Pa. St. 512 ; Flint v. Norwich and N. Y. Trans'n Co., 34 Conn. 554; Holly v. Atlanta Street R. R. Co., 61 Ga. 215 (a statute af- fected this decision); Weeks v. N. Y., N. II. and H. R. R. Co., 72 N. Y. 50; Hendricks v. Sixth Ave. R. R. Co., 12 J. & Sp. (N. Y.) 8; Britton v. At- lanta, etc., R'y Co., 88 N. C. 536; New Orleans, St. L. and C. R. R. Co. 323
