PART IV.] LIABILITY FOR TORTS OF AGENTS. [§ 365. § 365. A railroad or other corporation owes special duties to its employes ; and if these duties are not fulfilled, Cor ora ^ and injury occurs to an employe in consequence, the tion'siia- • -,i i. -i i i- ii ■ j • m bilityfor corporation will ordinarily be liable m damages, lo injuries to render a corporation liable to one of its servants for emp oy<5s " a personal injury sustained by the latter, the injury must have resulted from a breach of one of the following duties which the corporation owes its servants : first, to use reasonable care in selecting co-servants and to employ a reasonably sufficient num- ber of them to make the employment safe ;* secondly, to use reasonable diligence and care in supplying the servants with safe machinery and inspecting the same ; a thirdly, to apprise chants' Despatch Trans'n Co. v. Bolles, 80 111. 473 ; Camden and Am- boy R. R. Co. 0. Forsyth, 61 Pa. St. 81. See Halliday v. St. Louis, etc., R'y Co., 74 Mo. 159 ; Manhattan Oil Co. v. Camden aud Amboy R. R. Co., 54 N. Y. 197 ; Whitworth v. Erie Ry. Co.. 87 N. Y. 413 ; ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Wheeler, 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 480 ; Mag- bee v. Camden, etc., R. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 514 ; Railroad Co. v. Androscog- gin Mills, 22 Wall. 594. Compare Taylor v. Little Rock, etc., R. R. Co., 39 Ark. 148 ; St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Weakly, 50 Ark. 397. The pre- sumption is that injury to baggage "checked through" occurs while it is in the custody of the last carrier. Moore v. N. Y. N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 173 Mass. 335. 1 Wabash Ry. Co. v. McDaniels, 107 U. S. 454; Laning v. X. Y. Cent. R. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 521; Chicago and Alton R. R. Co. v. Sullivan, 63 111. 293 Harper v. Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co., 47 Mo. 567; Besel v. N. Y. C. and H. R. R. R. Co., 70 N. Y. 171, 173; Booth v. Boston and Albany R. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 38; Huntington, etc., R. R. Co. v. Decker, 82 Pa. St. 119; see Atchison, etc., R. R. Co. v. Moore, 29 Kans. 632 ; Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Peavey, ib. 169. 2 Hough v. Railway Co., 100 U. S. 213; Washington, etc., R. R. Co. v. McDade, 135 U. S. 554; Railroad Co. v. Babcock, 154 U. S. 190; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Archibald, 170 U. S. 665; Patton v. T. & P. R. Co., 179 U. S. 658; Keegan v. Western R. R. Co., 8 N. Y. 175; Vosburgh v. L. S., etc., R. Co., 94 N. Y. 374; Mullanu. Phila- delphia, etc., S. S. Co., 78 Pa. St. 25; Noyes v. Smith, 28 Vt. 59. Compare Louisville and Nashville R. R. Co. v. Orr, 84 Ind. 50; Wonder v. Balto. and Ohio R. R. Co., 32 Md. 411; Mo- bile and Ohio R. R. v. Thomas, 42 Ala. 673; Chicago and N. W. R. R. Co. v. Ward, 61 111. 130; Atchison, etc., R. R. Co. v. Holt, 29 Kans. 149; Fay v. Minneapolis, etc., R'y Co., 30 Minn. 231 ; Lasure v. Graniteville M'f g Co., 18 S. C. 275; McDonald v. N. & W. R. Co., 95 Va. 98. See In- ternational, etc., R. R. Co. v. Kindred, 57 Tex. 491; Missouri Pac. R. R. Co. v. Lyde, ib. 505; Vosburgh v. Lake Shore and Mich. So. R. Co., 94 N. Y. 374. Although a railroad company employ competent men to inspect its machinery, it will be liable for their negligent performance of their duty. Kirkpatiick v. N. Y. C. and H. R. R. R. Co., 79 N. Y. 240; Ford v. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 110 Mass. 240; 349
