Odger's English Common Law

656 TORTS ARISING OUT OF CONTRACTS.
But this is not a correct statement of the law ; for, if it were
true, the bailment would be gratuitous and the company
would only be liable for gross negligence. The company is
really a bailee for hire, and can be sued for loss of or damage to
the personal luggage of a passenger. Moreover, the onus is on
the company to show that it was not guilty of any negligence. 1
But where non-personal luggage is delivered to the company
as personal luggage, it is under no duty to take care of it,
unless it was accepted with the knowledge that it was not
personal luggage.
Tramway and omnibus companies are not bound to carry
passengers' luggage ; but on railway companies the obliga-
tion has been imposed by Parliament, and in nearly all cases
a clause to that effect is to be found in the company's Private
Act.
The Courts have declined to give any precise definition of
il personal luggage." But the term "comprises clothing,
and such articles as a traveller usually carries with him for
his personal convenience " 2—in 'fact, everything which a pas-
senger takes with him according to the habits of the class to
which he belongs. 3 There are many things which the Courts
have decided not to be personal luggage, such as a rocking-
horse, 4 furniture, household linen, 5 merchandise, 6 and even the
samples of a commercial traveller. 7 And the' liability of a
railway company for the personal luggage of its passengers
will, of course, be subject (a) to the provisions of the Carriers
Act ; (b) to the terms of any special contract which may have
been entered into ; and (c) to the by-laws of the company,
.and the rules and regulations made under the powers con-
ferred upon it. 8
If the luggage of a passenger is at his request placed in
i Hooper v. L. $ N. W. Ry. Co. (1880), BO L, J. Q. B. 103.
2 Per Parke, B., in G. N. Ry. Co. v. Shepherd (1852), 8 Exoh. at p. 38.
* See Jenkyns v. Soutliampton, fyc, Steam Packet Co., [1919] 2 K. B. 135.
' Hudson v. Midland Ry. Co. (1869), L. R. 1 Q. B. 366.
' Macrow v. G. W. Ry. Co. (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 612.
e Cahill v. L. % N. W. Ry. Co. (1861), 10 0. B. N. S. 154 ; (1863), 13 /&. 81& ;
^nd see Belfast and Ballymena, #c., Ry. Co. v. Keys (1861), 9 H. L. Cas. 556 ;
Phelps v. L. # N. W. Ry. Co. (1865), 19 C. B. N. S. 321.
' Wilkinson v. Lanes. $ Yorhs. Ry. Co., [1906] 2 K. B. 619.
« See Williams v. G, W. Ry. Co. (1854), 10 Exoh. 15 (where a by-law unduly
^restricting the liability of the defendants was held bad) .
.