KESTKICTION OF LIABILITY. 475 



of the restrictions on the carrier's liabiHty that have been 

 passed upon in the courts. In Arkansas it was held that a 

 bin of lading containing fifteen sections limiting the carrier's 

 common-law liability, required to be accepted by the shipper 

 in advance of the shipment, was, under the circumstances, in- 

 valid as being unfair and unreasonable, and that an inter- 

 mediate carrier could claim no more rights under it than the 

 original carrier could have claimed.'^'' In Kansas, a statute 

 prohibits a stipulation limiting or changing the common-law 

 liability of the company, except by regulation or order of the 

 board of railroad commissioners.''^ The carrier in considera- 

 tion of a reduced rate may stipulate for exemption from lia- 

 bility for overcrowding, suffocation, heat, fire, collision, run- 

 ning of? the track, etc.''^ But this will not exempt him, on 

 the general principle already discussed, where the injury is 

 due to his negligence. Therefore, when the shipper agreed to 

 ship an animal in a box-car if the doorway was slatted and 

 signed a special contract that, having examined the car, he 

 assumed all risks of suffocation and the animal was suffocated 

 in consequence of the car not being slatted, it was held that 

 suffocation for want of ventilation was not one of the ship- 

 per's risks.'^^' And where the shipper assumes the risk of 

 fire, if the company permit straw or combustible materials 

 to be used on the car in such a way that they may be easily 

 ignited, this is negligence for which the shipper may re- 



™ St. Louis, I, M, & S. R. Co. V. Spann, 57 Ark. 127. 



" See St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Sherlock, S9 Kan. 23. 



"Georgia R. Co. v. Beatie, 66 Ga. 438; Same v. Spears, Ibid. 485; 

 Mitchell V. Georgia R. Co., 68 id. 644; Meyers v. Wabash, St. L. & P. 

 R. Co., 90 Mo. 98; Squires v. New York Cent. R. Co., 98 Mass. 239. 



In 19 Cent. L. Jour. 165, it is said of Mitchell v. Ga. R. Co., supra: "It 

 would seem as the latter [i. e., the carrier] was the cause of the overcrowd- 

 ing, the case is of doubtful, if of any, authority." And see Internat. & G. 

 N. R. Co. V. Parish (Tex. Civ. App.), 43 S. W. Rep. 1066. 



" Kan. City, M. & B. R. Co. v. Holland 68 Miss. 351. And see Stur- 

 geon V. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co., 65 Mo. 569; Leuw v. Dudgeon, 

 L. R. 3 C. P. 17 n. 



