Punctuality

As a general rule, a railroad company is liable to damage accruing to a passenger for a negligent failure on its part to run its trains according to the company’s time tables; but there must be proof of negligence. Neither time table nor advertisement is a warrant of punctuality.

Whart. Negl. § 662.

The publication of the time table cannot amount to less than this, viz.: a representation that it is ordinarily practicable for the company, by the use of due care and skill, to run according to the table, and an engagement on their part that they will do all that can bd done, by the use of due care and skill, to accomplish that result; Gordon v. R. R., 52 N. H. 596, 13 Am. Rep. 97.

See also 5 E. & B. 860.

The company is undoubtedly liable for any want of punctuality which they could have avoided by the use of due care and skill; nor can they excuse a want of conformity to the time table for any cause, the existence of which was known to them, or ought to have been known to them, at the time of publishing the table; Gordon v. R. R., 52 N. II.

596, 13 Am. Rep. 97.

See 8 E. L. & Eq. 362; Sears v. R. Co., 14 Allen (Mass.) 433, 92 Am. Dec. 780, where a ship was held liable for the loss of perishable goods for failure to sail at the advertised time. Time-tables may amount to an offer of a contract to all persons who apply as passengers; but whether punctuality is in fact guaranteed depends on the facts of each case; Leake, Contr. 12. In Ang. Carriers 627 a, it is said that time tables are in the nature of a special contract, so that any liable. But it does not appear that the cases go so far.