## Facts

- Lockwood, a drover accompanying his cattle, shipped livestock on the New York Central Railroad from Buffalo to Albany.
- As a condition of shipment, the railroad required Lockwood to sign an agreement stating he would handle loading and unloading and assume “all risk” of injury to the cattle and to himself.
- Lockwood also received a “drover’s pass” allowing him to ride without separate fare, which declared acceptance would waive all claims for injuries on the train.
- The agreement recited that the consideration was cattle carriage at “less than tariff rates,” but evidence showed the stated tariff rates were artificially high and that drovers were uniformly required to sign similar releases.
- Lockwood was injured during the trip in an accident for which the evidence indicated negligence by the railroad or its servants.

## Issues

1. Whether a common carrier may, by contract, exempt itself from liability for its own or its employees’ negligence in transporting a passenger.
2. Whether that rule applies to a drover traveling on a stock train under a “free” drover’s pass issued as part of a livestock shipping arrangement.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Lockwood.
- A common carrier cannot validly stipulate for exemption from liability for its own or its servants’ negligence in carrying passengers.
- The drover’s pass and accompanying release were ineffective to bar Lockwood’s recovery to the extent they purported to waive claims for injuries caused by the carrier’s negligence.
- The trial court properly refused the railroad’s requested instruction that the contract exempted it from responsibility for accidents caused by ordinary negligence.

## Legal Principles

- A common carrier may not lawfully demand contractual exemptions from responsibility that are not “just and reasonable in the eye of the law.”
- It is not just or reasonable for a common carrier to stipulate for exemption from liability for its own negligence or that of its servants.
- These limits apply to common carriers of both goods and passengers, with particular force in passenger carriage.
- The rule applies to a drover traveling on a stock train under a pass issued in connection with the shipping transaction; labeling transportation “free” does not validate an exculpatory clause covering negligence.
- The Court did not decide whether the same rule would apply to a strictly gratuitous passenger.
- The case did not require resolving distinctions between “gross” and “ordinary” negligence where the carrier seeks to avoid liability for negligence.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a common carrier’s attempt to shift all personal-injury risk to a passenger through a release tied to transportation services is void as against public policy when it purports to excuse the carrier’s own or its employees’ negligence, and it upheld Lockwood’s verdict for injuries caused by the railroad’s negligence.


Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 357 (1873)