§ 378.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. Damages recover- able. Ex- emplary damages. § 377. In assessing damages against a corporation for per- sonal injuries caused by the negligence or other wrongful acts of its servants, the measure of damages is the same as in actions against individual principals or masters. According to the law as declared in the majority of the states, exemplary damages may be allowed against a corporation ; 1 but ouly when the wrongful act was clone wilfully, or with that indifference to the rights of others which is equivalent to an intentional violation of them. 2 § 378. The doctrine of other cases, however, is to the general land and Pittsburgh R. R. Co. v. Rowan, 66 Pa. St. 393 ; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. o. Weber, 76 Pa. St. 157 ; Weiss v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 79 Pa. St. 387 ; Freeh ». Phila., W. and B. R. K. Co., 39 Md. 574 ; State v. Balto. and Potomac R. R. Co., 58 Md. 482 ; Smoot v. Wetiunpka, 24 Ala. 112 ; Strablendorf v. Rosenthal, 30 Wis. 675 ; Kansas Pac. R'y Co. v. Pointer, 14 Kaus. 37 ; Kansas City L. and S. R. R. Co. v. Phillibert, 25 Kan. 582 ; Baltimore and O. R. R. Co. v. Whittington, 30 Grat. (Va.) 805 ; Thompson v. Duncan, 76 Ala. 334 ; Thompson v. North Missouri R. R. Co., 51 Mo. 190 ; St. Anthony Falls Co. v. Eastman, 20 Minn. 277 ; Mc- Quilken v. Cent. Pac. R. R. Co., 50 Cal. 7 ; MacDougal v. Central R. R. Co., 63 Cal. 431 ; Paducah, etc.,R. R. Co. v. Hoehl, 12 Bush (Ky.), 42; Texas and Pac. R. R. Co. v Murphy, 46 Tex. 356 ; Evansville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Hiatt, 17 Ind. 102 ; Hathaway v. Toledo, etc., R. R. Co., 46 Ind. 25 ; Jackson v. Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co., 47 Ind. 454; Higgins v. Jeffersou- ville, etc., R. R. Co., 52 Ind. 110 ; Galena, etc., R. R. Co. v. Fay, 16 111. 558 ; Baird v. Morford, 29 Iowa, 531 ; Reynolds v. Hind man, 32 Iowa, 14(5 ; Patterson v. B. and M. R. R. Co., 38 Iowa. 279 ; Fowler v. Baltimore and O. R. R. Co., 18 W. Va. 579 ; Street R. R. Co. v. Nolthenins, 40 O. St. 360 376. Compare Hinckley i Cape Cod R. R., 120 Mass. 257. Circumstances may make out a prima facie case of contributory neg- ligence, thus throwing on the plaintiff the burden of proving due care. See Allyn v. Boston and Albany R. R. Co., 105 Mass. 77 ; Johnson v. Hud- son River R. R. Co., 20 N. Y. 65. 1 Phila., W. and B. R. R. Co. v. Larkin, 47 Md. 155; Gasway v. At- lanta, etc., R'y Co., 58 Ga. 216; Western Un. Tel. Co. v. Eyser, 2 Col. 141 ; Hinckley v. Chicago, etc., R'y Co., 38 Wis. 194 ; Taylor v. Grand Trunk R'y Co., 48 N. H. 304 ; Male- cek v. Tower Grove, etc., R'y Co., 57 Mo. 17 ; Beale v. Railway Co., 1 Dill. 568 ; Singer M'f'g Co. v. Holdfodt, 86 111. 455 ; Atlantic, etc., R'y Co. v. Dunn, 19 Ohio St. 162 ; Hopkins v. Atlantic, etc., R. R. Co., 36 N. H. 9 ; Allbritton v. J. & G. N. R. R. Co., 38 Miss. 242 ; Jefferson County Savings Bk. v. Eborn, 84 Ala. 529 ; compare C raker v. Chicago and N. W. R'y Co., 36 Wis. 657; Pittsburgh, Ft. W. and C. R. R. Co. v. Slusser, 19 Ohio St. 157; Chicago R. R. Co. v. Scurr, 59 Miss. 456; Same v. Jarrett, ib. 470; Trigg v. St. Louis, etc., R'y Co, 74 Mo. 147; Memphis Packet Co. v. Nagel, 97 Ky. 9; L. &. N. R. R. Co, v. Kelly, 100 Ky. 421. 2 Milwaukee, etc., R. R. Co. v. Arms, 91 U. S. 489; Holmes v. Caro-
