Before negligence can be imputed to a person, a duty, the breach of which is the tort in question, must be shown.15 This duty may arise in any of the following ways:

(1) The duty may be implied by law.16 It has been held that no action is maintainable against a carrier as for a breach of its general duty for a failure to carry a passenger on Sunday, because the law implies no obligation to cany anyone on that day.17

15 Hart vs. Washington Park Club, 157 111., 9, 45 Am. St. Rep., 298; Duvall vs. Baltimore, etc. R. Co., 73 Md., 516; Currier vs. Boston Music Hall Assoc, 135 Mass., 414.

16 Fogarty vs. Finly, 10 Cal., 239; 70 Am. Dec, 714; Smith vs. Clarke Hardware Co., 100 Ga., 163; Phillips vs. Edsall, 127 111., 535.

(2) The specific duty, a violation of which is negligence in law, may also be created by statute or ordinance.18

(3) The relation out of which the duty arises by implication of the law, may be created by contract.19 Some of the more common relations which may be thus created are those of principal and agent, master and servant, and the relation between shippers and common carriers. It is not necessary, however, that the duty neglected should have risen out of contract.20 The principles of negligence are the same whether the negligence is a breach of a duty implied by law in the absence of all contract, or a breach of duty arising out of a contractual relation.21

As a general rule, it is unnecessary, where the duty arises out of a relation created by contract, that there should be privity of contract between the parties to the suit.22 An exception to this rule is found in the case of contracts of sale where the vendor of an article, not inherently dangerous in character, is not liable to one not a party to the contract of sale who is injured because of defects in construction.23

(4) Finally, the duty which is violated may be that to exercise ordinary or reasonable care and prudence.24 "Where reasonable care is employed in doing an act not itself illegal or inherently likely to produce damage to others, there will be no liability although damage in fact ensues."25

17 Walsh vs. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 42 Wis., 23.

18 American and English Ency. of Law, Vol. XXI, p. 460; Siem-ers vs. Eisen, 54 Cal., 418; Central R, etc., Co. vs. Smith, 78 Ga., 694; Wright vs. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 27 III. App., 200.

19 Collett vs. London, etc., R. Co., 16 Q. B., 984, 71 E. C, 984; Hayes vs. Philadelphia, etc., Goal, etc., Co., 150 Mass., 457; Schubert vs. J. R. Clark Co.,

49 Minn., 331; Coughty vs. Globe Woolen Co., 56 N. Y., 124. 20 Collett vs. London, etc., R. Co., 16 Q. B., 984, 71 E. C. L 984.

21 Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. vs. Acres,

108 Ind., 548. 22 Hayes vs. Philadelphia, etc., Coal, etc., Co., 150 Mass., 457; Denlin vs. Smith, 89 N. Y., 470. 42 Am. Rep., 311.

23 Bragdon vs. Perkins-Campbell Co. ( C C. A), 87 Fed. Rep., 109.