RESTRICTION OF LIABILITY. 471 



doctrine is said, in an article on the subject, to be tiie law 

 in the Supreme Court of the United States and in nineteen 

 States, while the opposite doctrine obtains in twelve States 

 and the District of Columbia, "so that though the larger 

 number of jurisdictions are in favor of allowing the carrier 

 to contract away his liability for negligence, yet the law 

 cannot by any means be regarded as settled." ^^ 



In England it has been held that a carrier may limit his 

 liability even for his own negligence, by stipulating that the 

 shipper is to assume all the risks of the journey; ^^ and there 

 are decisions to the same effect in Canada.^^ This has also 

 been held to be the law in New York: "In this State it is 

 well settled that a carrier may, by express contract, exempt 

 himself from liability for damages resulting from any degree 

 of negligence on the part of his servants, agents and em- 

 ployees." ^* Therefore, where the plaintiff assumed the risk 

 of injuries caused by heat and a number of the hogs died from 

 the result of the negligence of the defendant's employees in 

 not watering them and cooling them by wetting, it was held 

 that as the carriers of live-stock were liable only for negli- 

 gence, in order to give efifect to the stipulation it must be 

 construed as exempting the defendant from liability for 

 injuries by heat, the I'esult of negligence.^^ But in a later 

 case, it was held that where the general words of exemption 



Baughman v. Louisville, E. & St. L. R. Co., 94 id. 150; Louisville fie 

 N. R. Co. V. Owen, 93 id. 201; Chic., St. L. & N. O. R. Co. v. Abels, 

 60 Miss. 1017; South. Pac. R. Co. v. Maddox, 75 Tex. 300. 



And see Ashendon v. London, B. & S. C. R. Co., 5 Ex. D. 190; Dick- 

 son V. Great North. R. Co., 18 Q. B. D. 176. 



'' 4 Harv. L. Rev. 288. 



'^Austin V. Manchester, S. & L. R. Co., 10 C. B. 454; Shaw v. York 

 & N. M. R. Co., 13 Q. B. 347; Carr v. Lancashire ,& Y. R. Co., 7 Ex. 707; 

 Great North. R. Co. v. Morville, 21 L. J. Q. B. 319. 



"■' Fair v. Gt. West. R. Co., 35 U. C. Q. B. 534; O'Rorke v. Gt. West. 

 R. Co., 23 id. 427. 



" Cragin v. New York Cent. R. Co., 51 N. Y. 61. And see Wilson v. 

 N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 27 Hun (N. Y.) 149, affirmed in 97 N. Y. 87. 



"'' Cragin v. New York Cent. R. Co., supra. 



