Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Holzenkamp

In my opinion the record does not disclose facts that. justify the assumption that defendant in error was a passenger; a charge permitting the jury to so find was therefore prejudicial error.

I concede that actual physical contact with a ear by the intended passenger, is not always necessary to establish the relation of carrier and passenger. Hazelton v. Ry., 71 N. H., 589; Gordon v. Grand St. Ry., 40 Barb., 546; Barth v. Kansas City Ry. Co., 142, Mo., 535; Exten v. Centry Ry. Co., 63 N. J. Law, 356.

The underlying principle of these cases is, however, implied assent to carry the intending…