Thе official report sets forth the facts. The plaintiff in error complains that the verdict is contrary to law and contrary to evidence; complaint is made, further, that the court erred in giving in charge to the jury the following : “ To this end, our law invests conductors of passenger-trains with all the powers, duties and responsibilities of police officers while on duty оn trains. When a person is guilty of disorderly conduct, or uses any obscene, profane оr vulgar language in passenger-trains, the conductor may stop the train at the ■ plaсe where the offence is committed, or at the next stopping place of sаid train, and eject such passenger, and the conductor may command the assistanсe of the employees of the company and of the passengers on the trаin to assist in such removal, or the conductor may detain a disorderly passenger and dеliver him over to the authorities.”
Under the facts, the questiоn presented is a new one in this State. From Hutchinson on Carriers, §595, we have: “The passenger is entitled to not only every precaution which can be used for his personal safety by the carrier, but also to respectful treatment from him and his servants. From the moment the relation commences, as has been seen, the passenger is in a great measure under the protection of'the carrier, even from the violent conduct of other passengers or of strangers who may be temporarily upon his conveyance.” Sequent is §596 : “ The carrier’s obligation is to carry his passenger safely and properly, and to treat him respectfully; and if he intrusts the performance of this duty to his servants, the law holds him responsible for the manner in which they execute the trust. The law now seems to be well settled that the carrier is obliged to protect his passenger from violence and insult, from whatever source arising. He is not regarded as an insurer of his passenger’s safety against every possible source of danger ; but he is bound to use all such reasonable precаutions as human judgment and foresight are capable of, to make
These men, whose acts are set fоrth in this record, amused themselves by tormenting and insulting this plaintiff. It seems that the conductor, signalling with a wink, was willing that it should go on; the defendant company, through this representative, forgot, for the timе, that it had this plaintiff’s money in its coffers and was under contract and obligation to carry him sаfely and comfortably. This conductor placed his passenger at the mercy of thеse drunken brutes, for their distraction and occupation. It would be strange, indeed, if there were no law to extend protection to passengers under such circumstances ; it wоuld follow that the good and pure women of this State have no protection on rаilroad trains beyond what it suits conductors to give them, and that they are subject to the insults of аny beast whose liquor and lust combine for an assault. There are few conductors who wоuld see a passenger mistreated; the law says no conductor shall permit it. The postulate of the plaintiff in error demands too much.
This verdict is not contrary to the law and thе evidence. There was no error in giving in charge to the jury the law in reference to thе police powers of conductors. The statute gives to conductors this power, and, when it is necessary, it is incumbent upon them to make a reasonable use of it. As to the other points, no error appears. Judgment affirmed.