INDEX TO NOTES.

MASTER AND SERVANT.

Duty to Warn and Instruct Servant.

Changes in appliances or work place, 655.

Directed to perform work not within scope of employment, 660, Experienced employees, 665.

Inexperienced employees, 669.

Inexperienced employees-Obvious dangers, 675.

Information acquired by employee from other source, 641.

Latent dangers, 647.

Latent dangers not discoverable by exercise of ordinary care, 654. Minors, 675.

Obvious dangers, 641.

Perspicuity, 677.

Perspicuity as affected by characteristics of employee, 679.

Rule with regard to changes in appliances or work place applies to latent hazardous only, 658.

Total incapacity to appreciate dangers, 677.

Work not within scope of employment, 659.

Work place rendered unsafe by other work, 661.

Work rendered hazardous by extraneous cause, 659.

35 R R R-51

GENERAL INDE X.

ACCIDENTS ON TRACK.

See CROSSINGS; DEATH BY WRONGFUL ACT; LICEN-
SEES; STREET RAILWAYS; TRESPASSERS.

Appliances.

Railroad is not required to equip its freight trains with automatic brakes. Pinson v. Southern Ry. (S. Car.), 700.

Contributory Negligence.

Duty of person on track to keep constant lookout for approaching trains. Southern Ry. Co. v. Bailey (Va.), 557.

Degree of Care.

Duty of guarding person against injury which the law imposes on railroad company is no greater than that which the person owes to care for his own safety. Southern Ry. Co. v. Bailey (Va.), 557.

Discovered Peril.

That engineer, while train was 21⁄2 miles from where deceased was struck by train, was in his place, looking forward, was too remote to warrant conclusion that he discovered deceased in time to avoid the injury. Southern Ry. Co. v. Stewart (Ala.), 234.

Last Clear Chance.

Doctrine of did not apply, since at any time the drayman, when standing near track, apparently in possession of all his faculties, could have escaped injury from the train, and hence it was a case of concurring negligence. Southern Ry. Co. v. Bailey (Va.), 557.

Duty of trainmen to do all that they can consistent with their higher duty to others to save person on track from consequences of his own negligence in being there. Southern Ry. Co. v. Bailey (Va.), 557.

For engineer to see man on track is not necessarily to see that he is in position of danger. Southern Ry. Co. v. Bailey (Va.),

557.

ACTIONS.

See DEATH BY WRONGFUL ACT.

AGENCY.

See CONNECTING CARRIERS; EVIDENCE; MASTER AND
SERVANT; RAILROADS.

ANIMALS.

See FRIGHTENING TEAMS; STOCK, INJURIES TO. Not required_to__stop_street cars to avoid collisions with dogs. Henry v. St. Paul City Ry. Co. (Minn.), 9.

Right of motorman to act on presumption that ordinarily a dog on street car track will get out of the way. Henry v. St. Paul City Ry. Co. (Minn.), 9.

BAGGAGE.

What Is.

Question for court or jury. Vlasservitch v. Augusta & A. Ry.
Co. (S. Car.), 721.

Waiver of rule prohibiting passengers from bringing large and
unwieldy articles into street cars. Vlasservitch v. Augusta &
A. Ry. Co. (S. Car.), 721.

BILLS OF LADING.

See CARRIERS; CONNECTING CARRIERS.

CARRIERS.

See COMMON

CARRIERS;

CONNECTING

CARRIERS;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; INTERSTATE COMMERCE;
RAILROAD COMMISSIONS.

CARRIERS OF LIVE STOCK.

Burden of Proof.

Shipper has burden of proving that injury to stock occurred
through negligence of carrier, and not from failure on his part
to perform the contract duties assumed by him during trans-
portation. Bartelt v. Oregon R. & N. Co. (Wash.), 400.
Carrier was chargeable with notice that mares were heavy in foal.
Bartelt v. Oregon R. & N. Co. (Wash.), 400.

Damages.

For negligent failure to
carrier was liable for
cause of such failure.

135.

deliver cattle in time for a certain sale,
whatever damages shipper suffered be-
Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Miles (Ark.),

Measure of damages was difference between the price that ship-
per's thoroughbred cattle could have been sold for at the auc-
tion in question, but for failure to transport them in time for
the auction, and the price obtained for them at private sale.
Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Miles (Ark.), 135.

Prima facie evidence of market value of horses delayed and in-
jured in transportation. Berry v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. (S.

Dak.), 615.

Degree of Care.

Car, duty to furnish safe and suitable. Berry v. Chicago, etc.,
Ry. Co. (S. Dak.), 615.

Carrier not liable for injuries inflicted by animals upon each
other. Cleveland, etc., Ry. Co. v. Rudy (Ind.), 121.

Delay.

Evidence showed unreasonable delay in transportation of live
stock by connecting carrier. McMillan v. Chicago, etc., Ry.

Co. (Iowa), 396.
Negligently delayed train stopped by obstruction caused by act
of God, at point which should have been passed before act
of God occurred. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Miles (Ark.), 135.
Evidence justified finding that injury to the animals in question was
caused by the negligent operation of the train, authorizing re-
covery. Bartelt v. Oregon R. & N. Co. (Wash.), 400.

Limiting Liability.

Agreed valuation of stock. Berry v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. (S.
Dak.), 615.

.

Carrier may not exempt itself from liability for any negligent

CARRIERS OF LIVE STOCK-Continued.

act in transporting stock. Bartelt v. Oregon R. & N. Co.
(Wash.), 400.
Claim for damages shall be filed with carrier's agent within five
days from date of removal of stock from cars, validity of con-
dition that. Cleveland, etc., Ry. Co. v. Rudy (Ind.), 121.
Claim for damages shall be filed with carrier's agent within five
days from date of removal of stock from cars, waiver of con-
dition that. Cleveland, etc., Ry. Co. v. Rudy (Ind.), 121.
If carrier is aware that no one is accompanying the stock to care
for them while in transit, its duty to give them proper atten-
tion is the same as though no contract for care by the shipper
had been made. Patterson v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. (Okl.),

410.

Notice of loss to be given within specified time, hogs that died
in the car, and were removed therefrom in transit by railroad's
employees were not within clause of contract of shipment re-
quiring. Patterson v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. (Okl.), 410.
Presumption that stipulation requiring shipper to load, feed, etc.,
at his own risk is binding as supported by valid consideration.
Bartelt v. Oregon R. & N. Co. (Wash.), 400.
Rule as to carrier's liability where live stock is accompanied by
caretaker as required by contract does not relieve carrier from
liability for negligent delay in transporting the stock which the
caretaker may not prevent in the exercise of diligence.
Millan v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. (Iowa), 396.
Stipulation devolving upon shipper duty of selecting suitable car,
effect of. Berry v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. (S. Dak.), 615.
Validity of stipulation under which shipper agrees to load, un-
load and reload at his own risk, and feed, water and tend the
stock at his own risk, while the stock are in any stockyard.
Bartelt v. Oregon R. & N. Co. (Wash.), 400.

Where injury to live stock resulted from negligent operation of
train, liability of carrier arose which was not covered by limi-
tations of contract requiring shipper to load, feed, etc., at his
own risk. Bartelt v. Oregon, R. & N. Co. (Wash.), 400.
Police power to regulate the speed of trains so as to insure the
utmost diligence in transporting live stock. Downey v. Northern
Pac. Ry. Co. (N. Dak.), 598.

CARRIERS OF MAIL.

Government of United States in the carriage and delivery of mails
is engaged in the discharge of a governmental function. Barker
v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. (Ill.), 470.

Mail clerk, liability of railroad for injuries to. Barker v. Chicago,
etc., Ry. Co. (Ill.), 470.

Railroad in carrying the mails is not an agent or public officer en-
gaged in a governmental function so as to be exempt from lia-
bility for negligence of its employees, but is only a contractor.
Barker v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. (Ill.), 470.

CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS.

See BAGGAGE; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; EXPRESS COM-
PANIES; LEASES AND RUNNING POWERS; LICEN-
SEES; STATIONS AND DEPOTS.

Assaults.

Assault by inspector upon street car passenger, liability of car-
rier for. Goodwin v. Cincinnati, Traction Co. (C. C. A.), 477.
Assault upon street car passenger, question for jury whether in-
spector was acting within scope of his employment in making.
Goodwin v. Cincinnati Traction Co. (C. C. A.), 477.