Adams v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 August 1899
• Citation: 95 F. 938
• Parties: ADAMS et al. v. NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO.
• Court: United States Circuit Court, District of Washington

95 F. 938

ADAMS et al. v. NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO.

United States Circuit Court, D. Washington, Eastern Division.

August 7, 1899

Voorhees & Voorhees, for plaintiffs.

Stephens & Bunn, for defendant.

HANFORD District Judge.

This is an action by the widow and son of Jay H. Adams, deceased, to recover damages for the injury which they have suffered by his death. Mr. Adams fell or was thrown from the platform between cars of a train on which he was traveling as a passenger from Hope, in the state of Idaho, to Spokane sustaining injuries causing his death; and the complaint charges that the mishap was due to negligence on the part of the defendant in the improper construction of the cars, and carelessness in operating the train. The defendant has filed an answer setting forth several grounds of defense, in which it pleads, as its third affirmative defense, 'that the said Jay H. Adams paid defendant nothing for his transportation, but was being carried upon a free pass, and that said Jay H. Adams, as a condition of such free carriage had contracted with said defendant that said defendant should not be liable for any injury to the person of said Jay H Adams, or for any loss or damage to his property, under any circumstances, whether of negligence of defendant's agents or otherwise'; and the case has been argued and submitted upon a demurrer to said defense.

The attorneys for the defendant, in their argument upon the demurrer, make the following points:

'In the interpretation of a contract limiting liability of carrier, as to its validity and effect the lex loci contractus must control. * * * This rule certainly must prevail in a case where plaintiff depends entirely for a recovery solely upon the law of the state where such contract was made. The contract limiting the liability of the defendant railway company in this case was made, entered into, and delivered within the state of Washington,-- the state where this suit was brought; and the law of the state of Washington is that, where the passenger is a strictly gratuitous one, recovery cannot be had. See Muldoon v. Railway Co., 7 Wash. 528-532, 35 P. 422; Id. (second appeal) 10 Wash. 311-313, 38 P. 995.'

Their effort appears to be to treat the case as if it were an action to recover damages for breach of the contract by which the company undertook to carry Mr. Adams as a passenger on its train. But the plaintiffs do not base their demand upon any contract. On the contrary, they complain of a wrong resulting in an injury to them, by deprivation of the support, protection, society, and comfort of their husband and father. Their case rests upon the same legal grounds as it would if Mr. Adams, without being a passenger on the defendant's train, and without holding any contract relation whatever with the defendant, had been killed by the wrongful act of the defendant. This being so, the question as to the validity of the contract under which the defendant claims...