TortsCommon carriersExculpatory clausesPassenger injuriesreduced fare ticketclerical ticketrelease from negligencecommon carrier
Facts
Plaintiff's intestate, a clergyman, traveled on defendant's railroad from Elmira to Le Roy using a clerical ticket purchased at a reduced fare of $1.20 rather than the regular $2.35 fare. He signed conditions on both the ticket and clerical order expressly assuming all risk of accidents and damage, including those caused by the negligence of the company, its agents, or employees. Near Le Roy, the train derailed when a defective rail broke, killing him. No claim was made that he failed to understand the release, and there was no claim of any affirmative wrongdoing or willful misconduct by defendant or its agents.
Issue
Does an express release of liability for negligence, given by a passenger in exchange for a reduced railroad fare, bar recovery for the passenger's death in a derailment caused by a defective rail? More specifically, is such a release void as against public policy, or inapplicable because the negligence was allegedly that of the railroad itself rather than its servants?
Rule
In New York, a common carrier may, by clear express contract supported by sufficient consideration such as gratuitous or reduced-rate passage, exempt itself from liability for negligence to that passenger. The rule does not extend to willful or wanton misconduct, and the contract must plainly express the exemption rather than leave it to implication.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Marta Ruiz bought a discounted teacher-rate train ticket from Albany to Syracuse on Empire Valley Rail, paying $18 instead of the regular $34 fare. Above her signature, the ticket stated that in consideration of the reduced fare she assumed all risk of injury, including injury caused by the negligence of the railroad and its employees; she later suffered injuries when track maintenance workers negligently failed to replace a worn switch component.
If Marta sues Empire Valley Rail for negligence, what is the strongest argument for the railroad under the governing rule?
Explanation. The majority rule is that in New York a common carrier may enforce a clear express release of liability for negligence against a passenger traveling gratuitously or at a reduced fare. A reduced fare is sufficient consideration; the contract need not involve wholly free passage. Because the clause plainly covers negligence of the railroad and its employees, ordinary negligence by maintenance workers falls within it, absent willful or wanton misconduct. (Derived from Anderson v. Erie Railroad Co. (n.d.).)