Same Streets
← All stories

The Price of a Hold-up: Passenger Sues Northern Pacific

After a daring train robbery in a sparsely settled district, a passenger sues the railroad for failing to secure the train's sleeping cars.

The story, cleaned up

A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.

As a result of the Hot Springs train robbery, Henry P. Guimaraes, one of the passengers who were relieved of their valuables, will today, through his attorneys, Thompson, Edsen & Humphries, bring a damage suit against the Northern Pacific Railroad Company and the Pullman Palace Car Company. The complaint filed sets out in detail the circumstances of the robbery, alleging that the defendants negligently failed to guard the train while it was passing through a wild and sparsely settled district, where there had been a bank robbery at Roslyn just a short time before. It claims they failed to lock the rear door of the car and that the conductor made no effort to defend the passengers. By the negligence of the employees, the robbers entered the train and the plaintiff had $75 and a gold watch worth $50 taken from him. He was also beaten and intimidated, while his wife suffered a severe nervous shock. The plaintiff asks for $25,000 in damages, claiming that sleeping car passengers are entitled to a higher degree of protection than that required of ordinary common carriers.

“They maintain that passengers in a sleeping car are entitled to have for their property more than the ordinary care required of common carriers or innkeepers.”

— Printed in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892
Then · 1892134 years apartNow · 2026

This case highlights the long-standing tension between corporate liability and public safety in transit. Much like today's debates over ride-share security and corporate duty of care, the 1892 legal argument challenged whether paying for a 'luxury' service implied a higher standard of physical protection.

The original page

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-11-29. Library of Congress, Chronicling America.

From readers

No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.

About this story

From
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, NOV 29, 1892, Page 5
Rights
Public domain
Place
47.60323, -122.33028 · placed automatically
The paper in the Library of Congress catalog ↗