Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. O'Keefe

Citations

• 125 Miss. 536
• 88 So. 1

Syllabus

<p>1. Cabeieks. Carrier not required to accept unattended child of tender years, hut, if it does so, is liable for neglect of duty; if carrier seeks to limit ticket agent’s power to contract, limitations-must he posted or brought to passenger’s attention.</p> <p>The carrier of passengers is not required to accept, unattended, a child of tender years needing special attention, but it may do so, and, if it does, it is liable for injury caused by its neglect of duty. The ticket agent generally has power to make contracts for the carrier for the carriage of passengers, and such contracts are within the scope of his apparent duties. If the carrier seeks to limit his powers, it must have its rules limiting the agent’s powers posted in its passenger depots, or else it must call the passenger’s attention to the limitation, or bring it to his attention, to prevent liability for breach of a special contract by its ticket agent.</p> <p>2. Carriers. Instructions as to liability for carrying child past destination in violation of special contract held not erroneous.</p> <p>In a suit for damages for failure to put a child off at its destination, under a special contract so to do, to instruct the jury that, if the jury believed the ticket agent agreed that the conductor would put the child off at its destination, and that the conductor promised the same thing, and if they believed that it was within the scope of the authority of these employees to bind the railroad company by an agreement or promise made by the conductor and ticket agent, that then the defendant would be liable for the conductor’s failure to put the child off, is not erroneous, where the evidence sustains such facts. The fact that the conductor was without authority to make a special contract would be immaterial, where the ticket agent had such power and did make such contract. It merely imposed on the plaintiff the necessity of proving more than was needed under the law, it being sufficient to prove that the tick