« PreviousContinue »
and to take passengers upon a train run-, would not stop at that place, and that ning from Corbin to Norton; Elys beir.g on he would have to alight at Flat Lick, an that line and about 25 miles east of Cor- intermediate station, one mile west of Elys. bin.
This plaintiff said he would not do. Later, There were two trains leaving Corbin as the train was nearing Barbourville, the daily on this line that were scheduled to county seat of Knox county, the conductor stop at Elys; one leaving about 6 in the asked Gaddie if he would not rather alight morning, the other about 2:30 in the after at Barbourville, where he could get a hotel, noon, each requiring about 11 hours to than at Flat Lick; but plaintiff declined reach Elys. There was also a fast train to accept the suggestion, and he says that leaving over this road at about 3:45 in the conductor did not speak to him after the morning; but this train was not sched-that. uled to stop at Elys, and plaintiff waited When the train stopped at Flat Lick in and around the station until this train plaintiff failed to alight. He admits that was due to leave and boarded it. When he knew that Elys was not a regular stop the conductor came to collect Gaddie's fare, for that train, having lived at said station and saw that his ticket was for Elys, he for years, but testifies that he did not immediately informed him that the train' think the conductor would be so contrary whether it will stop at his destination, the freight travel of the road into confusion, it bare refusal of the conductor to stop there is the conductor's duty to refuse to stop is no dereliction of his duty, and it is not merely for such passenger's accommodation, negligence, to be visited on the company. and the fact that the conductor took the St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Rosenberry, passenger's ticket would not alter the rule 45 Ark. 256, 2 Am. Neg. Cas. 122.
under such circumstances. St. Louis, I. M. So, also, one who boards a train which, & S. R. Co. v. Rosenberry, 45 Ark. 256, 2 under traffic arrangements of the railroart Am. Neg. Cas. 122; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. company over whose lines it is running, is Co. v. Atchison, 47 Ark. 74, 14 S. W. 468, not permitted to stop at the place of such | 2 Am. Neg. Cas. 136. person's destination, cannot, by offering the And in Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Randolph, fare to such place, require that the train 53 Ill. 510, 5 Am. Rep. 60, 2 Am. Neg. Cas. stop there. Flood v. Chesapeake & 0. R. Co. 574, where a passenger boarded a freight supra.
train, desiring to go to a station at which İn St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Town- such train stopped only as transportation of send, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 616, 101 S. W. 455, stock or freight might require, in holding it was held that an action for refusal to stop the railroad company not liable for failure a train at the place where passenger wished to stop at such point, there being no stock to alight could not be maintained, it being at that place for shipment, the court said inferable from the evidence that plaintiff, that it is but reasonable that a railroad when he boarded the train, knew it would company may exclude all passengers from not stop at his destination, the place hav. such trains or only carry them to places at ing been discontinued as a station, and none which they are accustomed to stop; and if a of the railroad company's trains stopping person gets upon such a train without any there, and he was given an opportunity to agreement that it will stop at an unusual a light at a regular stop 1 mile from such place of stopping, he cannot require the place, and this although the auditor took company to change the usual course of its the plaintiff's fare to the place at which he business for his accommodation and to wished to get off, but, on being informed by serve his convenience. Should a person get the conductor that that was not a regular on such a train without the consent of the stopping place, informed the passenger of employees of the road, the taking up of his his mistake and gave him an opportunity to ticket merely, without an agreement to stop alight at the station 1 mile before reaching at the desired station, would not amount to the place to which he wished to go.
an undertaking by the company to put him In Miley v. Northern P. R. Co. 41 Mont. off at that place. In such a case the pas51, 108 Pac. 5, action to recover statutory senger is in the wrong and has no right to penalty for refusal to stop train at station, insist that he be safely put off at the point the court, while intimating that the statute he desires, or be carried without further did not require the railroad company to stop charge. the train at every station, reserved its de- Also in Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Byas, cision on that point, holding that plaintiff | 9 Tex. Civ. App. 572, 29 S. W. 1122, action did not bring herself within the provisions for refusal to stop at place of destination of of that statute so as to entitle recovery, as one who boarded a through special excursion the statute provided that the regular fare train by mistake, which left at about the must be tendered, and she tendered an ex- same time as the regular passenger train, a cursion ticket at a reduced rate.
charge that it was the duty of the railroad If one through his own neglect embarks company to stop its train at such point in on a mere “wild train” which is not sched- any erent was held incorrect, as, although uled to stop at his place of destination, and it was the duty of the railroad company to which the conductor cannot delay without stop its train at each station a sufficient the danger of throwing the passenger and' time for passengers to alight, yet the comas not to stop there for him to get off. 1. It has been held that a carrier has a However, he was mistaken in this, and was right to make and enforce reasonable rules carried on past Elys to the next regular and regulations for the operation of its stopping place-Four Mile. There he vol. trains, that it is the duty of a person prountarily left the train and proceeded to posing to become a passenger to ascertain walk the 2 miles back to Elys. He testi- / be ore boarding the train whether it stops fies that it was so dark that he could not at his destination, and that a passenger see anything, and that he fell into a ditch who boards a train not scheduled to stop at and over some cross ties, and skinned his the station to which he desires to go cannot legs, and was sadly injured; that the recover damages for the failure of the concoach was very warm when he got off, and ductor to stop thereat. In Louisville & N. coming out in the cold air, and having to R. Co. v. Miles, 100 Ky. 84, 37 S. W. 486, walk so far on the ice and sleet, he was it was said that "if it be within the power chilled, and contracted a cold, and suffered of a passenger by getting aboard of a train greatly.
to compel it to stop at any station he may pany was permitted to run special ex- on a railroad company to carry a holder on cursion trains between two points without any passenger train that does not, in accordstopping at intermediate stations. The ance with the public running arrangements court stated: “The train upon which plain of the company, stop at the place named, tiff traveled was not a regular passenger and to stop there contrary to those arrangetrain; the defendant had not by running it ments to discharge him. Ohio & M. R. Čo. undertaken that it should stop at all way v. Swarthout, 67 Ind. 567, 33 Am. Rep. 104. stations. As it furnished a train for such | The court stated that the words were probpassengers as plaintiff, it had the right to ably intended to prevent any implication run a special train through without stop- that the company was bound to carry the ping unless by its conduct it had entitled holder on freight trains, or anything but plaintiff to demand that it should stop at passenger trains, his destination. If he was not informed and But in Hutchinson v. Southern R. Co. 140 did not know of the difference between the N. C. 123, 52 S. E. 263, 6 Ann. Cas. 22, one two trains and was justified by the manner who boarded a train not scheduled to stop in which defendant managed its train at at her station was held entitled to recover Houston, in believing that the train which damages for failure of the conductor to stop he entered was a proper one upon which he at such point, on the ground that the de. was to be carried, we are of the opinion that fendant failed in its duty to have someone he had the right to expect defendant to let at the gate to examine the tickets, and prehim off at his destination, and in case of vent anyone from boarding the train for a his failure to do so to recover such damages station at which the train was not scheduled as resulted to him therefrom. And his to stop. The court said: “There was nothrights would, we think, be the same if the ing on the face of her ticket to show that it officers in the train recognized him was not good on that train. It was the duty passenger to Harrisburg by taking up his of the defendant to have had an agent at ticket and promising to put him off there the gate (as is usual) to examine the tickets and failed to do so though he may have and allow no one to get upon a train which entered the cars with knowledge of the does not stop at his destination. Not har. character of the trains. Or whether he was ing done this, but having received the plainmisled by defendant's conduct or not, if he tiff into this train without objection, with a entered the train believing in good faith ticket calling for Liberty, a regular station, that it was the regular passenger train, or as her destination, and she not knowing that that it was to stop at his destination, and this train did not stop there, it was the duty if defendant's servants learned of his pres- of the defendant to stop the train at that ence in the train and his destination before point for her.” The court further said that passing Harrisburg, they were bound to if the plaintiff had been aware that the train treat him as a passenger, and if Harrisburg did not stop at her station she could not was the first station passed after defend complain if she had been put off at the first ant's servants learned of plaintiff's mistake stop, with her ticket indorsed with leave to under such circumstances we think it would pursue her journey by the next train stopbe required to put him off there. But if, ping at her destination; but that she testiwhen he entered the train, he was informed fied that she had no such information, and, or knew the train was a special one which on the contrary, that she had twice in eighdid not stop at Harrisburg, and if there was teen months previously been on the same no such recognition of his right as a pas-train, which stopped and put her off at senger by the employees on the train as is Liberty; and that the notice on the printed above supposed, he had no right to demand schedule of the company was not brought that those operating the train should stop home to her, and there was no evidence that to let him get off. The charge assumed that she had any actual notice that the train did he was entitled to have the train stop in not stop there. This case, in holding that any event, and hence was erroneous.”
the railroad company was bound to stop its Words on a ticket, "good on passenger train at the passenger's destination altrains only,” do not impose any obligation' though it was not scheduled to stop at that
designate, then the authority of the com- ordinarily bound by the act of its ticket pany to make reasonable rules for the con- agent in agreeing with or informing the duct of its business. and the running of its purchaser of a ticket to a certain station train is destroyed, the traveling public that the train proposed by the passenger would be seriously interrupted, a railroad to be taken will stop at the station for the could no longer calculate upon its trains purpose of permitting the passenger to making certain connections with trains on alight thereat. other roads, and the hazard of operating 2. In the case at bar Gaddie had no inthem would be increased.”
formation from or agreement with any The rule stated in that case, however, is ticket agent that the train he boarded would subject to the limitation expressed later in stop at Elys; but he claims and testified the opinion in Louisville & N. R. Co. v. that, when the train upon which he took Scott, 141 Ky. 538, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 206, passage at Corbin was announced, he went 133 S. W. 800, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 547, where through the gate through which all passenin it was held that a railroad company is gers were required to pass in order to reach place, seems to be out of harmony with the tract with the one purchasing and accepting decisions of analogous cases, as where one such ticket that such person will be carried has been misdirected, and where it is held to the place indicated on the ticket on that the railroad company was not bound to train which does not stop, under the rules stop its train, but that the passenger had and regulations of the railroad company, at an action for breach of contract to carry, such place. C'sher v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. or in tort for negligence in misdirecting. Co. 71 Kan. 375, 80 Pac, 956.
And it has been held that where a pas. So, also, a railroad company by selling a senger boards a train, his destination being ticket to a certain point does not obligate a station at which the train is not sched itself to stop a through express at the latter uled to stop, and to which station no tickets station, nor is the sale of a ticket in itself are sold for such train, but his fare to such an assurance that the purchaser will be carstation is received by the conductor, he may ried through to his destination on a through recover for injuries sustained as a result of express without change of cars. Atchison, failure to stop the train sufficient time to al- | T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Cameron, 14 C. C. A. low him to alight, where it is shown that 358, 32 U. S. App. 67, 66 Fed. 709. while not scheduled to stop at the station, And the fact that a ticket was sold to one the train is required by law to stop at a and he is permitted to enter the cars of a railway intersection 500 feet beyond; that train which does not stop at his destination passengers had for several years been re does not require that the train be stopped ceived on this train to be carried to such i at such place, if it is not in accordance with station, the conductor collecting the fare to the regulations of the company to stop such place, and they being in the habit of there. Haskins v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. getting off at the place where the train Co. 4 Ohio L. J. 951. stopped before reaching the intersection, A sale of a ticket as a train is approachwhich at times was at the station platform, ing is not a representation that that train and in reliance on such custom and on the will stop at the station for which the ticket fact that the train came to a full stop, the was purchased. Duling v. Philadelphia, W. injured passenger attempted to alight. & B. R. Co. 66 Md. 120, 6 Atl. 592. McNulta v. Ensch, 134 III. 46, 24 N. E. 631, Nor is the fact that the ticket is marked 2 Am. Neg. Cas. 675. It may be stated that “For this day and train only' a representathe defendant laid no particular stress on tion that that train will stop at the place the fact that the passenger had boarded a for which the ticket was purchased. Ibid. train not scheduled to stop at his desti. And in Noble v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. nation, but based its nonliability on the Co. 4 Okla. 534, 46 Pac. 483, it was held that fact that the train stopped beyond the the fact that one asked a ticket agent when station, where passengers alighted with a certain train was due, and, upon being insafety, and that the plaintiff should have formed that it would arrive in a few waited until the train reached such place; minutes, asked for a ticket to a certain place but the court based the liability on the fact at which the train by its schedule did not that at the time the conductor received the stop, will not, where such person boarded fare the passenger should have been notified the train and was ejected upon his refusal that no stop would be made at the station, to pay fare to the first regular stop of the and in the absence of such notification and train, entitled him to an action to recover because of the fact that the train slackened damages, based on the ground that he was its speed before reaching the station plat- misled or misinformed by the agent, or that form and finally stopped at it, the passenger a special agreement was made by the railwas justified in believing that that was the road company through its agent by which place for him to alight.
he was to be put off at the station to which
he had purchased the ticket. The court -effect of sale of ticket.
stated that in order to sustain this conten
tion it is necessary that it should clearly apA railroad company which sells a ticket pear in the evidence that it was the intento a certain place does not enter into a con- ' tion of the passenger to take the through the train; that the gateman called for the of incorrect information of the carrier's exhibition of tickets; that he held his ticket employees, boards a train not scheduled to up, and the gateman pointed and called out stop at the station for which he has a the number of the track on which was ticket and to which he desires to go, the standing the train which he boarded. He carrier has a right to correct the mistake, further testified that, as he was about to and to require the passenger to alight at a step on the train, the brakeman asked him regular stopping place, which is a suitable where he was going, and he replied that he place, from which he may take the next was going to Elys, and went on in the train regular train that does stop at his destinawithout objection upon the part of the tion; and that it is the duty of the passenbrakeman. Because of these facts it is con- ger to stop off at such place and wait for tended that it was the contractual duty of such train. Carter v. Southern R. Co. 75 the company to stop the train at Elys. S. C. 355, 55 S. E. 771; Black v. Atlantic
The greater weight of authority supports Coast Line R. Co. 82 S. C. 478, 64 S. E. 418; the rule that where a passenger, by reason Runyon v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 74 N. J. L. train then due in eight or ten minutes, similar cases would be to assume that from
, did not stop at his destination, and that it stances surrounding the purchase of the was not his intention to wait from that time ticket, the ticket agent should have known until an hour later, and take the local that the purchaser intended to take that train, which, by the regulations of the com train, and should have advised her that she pany, did stop at his destination, and could not reach her destination by such that at the time the agent of the company train, and should have refused to sell her a knew that such was the intention of the pas- ' ticket for that place if he knew that she was senger, and that the agent consented to this going to take that train with the thought of arrangement and that the regulations of the alighting at such place. company should be waived to suit this proposition and purpose of the passenger; -effect of misdirection of ticket agent. and it must also specifically and clearly appear that the passenger acted upon the
In Marshall v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. agreement thus intentionally and knowingly Co. 78 Mo. 610, where one, at the direction made between the agent of the company and of the ticket agent, boarded a train which himself. It must also appear that the pas- did not stop at her destination, and was senger was himself in the exercise of due carried to the first stopping station beyond, care in making this agreement, and that he it was held that an action for damages had taken pains to inform himself that the predicated on the conductor's refusal to stop through passenger train which he took did the train at her destination could not be or did not, under the regulations of the maintained, but that the action should be company, stop at his destination, and that predicated on the negligent misdirection of the agent of the railroad company was fully the ticket agent. The court stated that the aware and knew by what transpired between conductor was not guilty of negligence in them at the time that it was the intention of refusing to stop his train at the passenger's the passenger to take the through passenger destination, for he was forbidden to do so train, and that the agent understood it to by the rules of the company; and if he had be agreed upon between them that that train stopped there in violation of his duty and should stop at his destination.
the regulations of the company, and injury But in Texas & P. R. Co. v. Cole, 66 Tex. had resulted to anyone from such violation 562, 1 S. W. 629 (action to recover damages of duty, the company would have been held for physical and mental suffering resulting liable therefor. If the conductor of from walking to destination where one who through train, which, by the regulations of boarded a train which did not stop at her the company, is permitted to stop only at a destination was carried to the first stopping few important stations on its transit, can be place beyond such destination, the conductor required to stop his train at any way station refusing to stop at the place for which she on the statement of a passenger that he was had a ticket), although the verdict for the informed by some agent of the company plaintiff was reversed on the ground that authorized to give such information that the the injuries were proximately caused by the train would stop at such station, and that passenger's own negligence, yet the court, in he had been directed to take that train, the the course of its opinion, stated that the movement of such train would virtually be railroad company's first breach of duty withdrawn from the control of the company, toward such passenger was in selling her a and placed under the control of the pasticket to her destination when the train sengers; and in lieu of that precision, regu. did not stop at that place, and that this was larity, and security which should be required the foundation upon which her right of re in the management of passenger trains, only covery rested.
There is nothing in the uncertainty, irregularity, and insecurity opinion to indicate as to why the court would prevail. In many instances the conthought that the ticket agent should not ductor would have no means of testing the have sold the ticket, and the only way to good faith of the representations made to harmonize this statement with decisions in ' him by the passenger, and he would have to
225, 68 Atl. 107; International & G. N. R. he proposes to take will stop at his destinCo. v. Hassell, 62 Tex. 256, 50 Am. Rep. ation to permit him to alight, although it 525; Miller v. King, 21 App. Div. 192, 47 is not a regular scheduled stop for such N. Y. Supp. 534; Lake Shore & M. S. R. train, the carrier may correct such error, Co. v. Pierce, 47 Mich. 277, 11 N. W. 157; and the passenger be required to alight at Turner v. McCook, 77 Mo. App. 198; St. an intermediate station, for the carrier in Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Wallace, 32 such case has made its contract, and that Tex. Civ. App. 312, 74 S. W. 581; St. Louis contract the passenger has a right to enSouthwestern R. Co. v. Townsend, 45 Tex. force. But, where no specific agreement for Civ. App. 616, 101 S. W. 455. This we such stopping of the train is clearly shown think to be a sound rule of law.
to have been effected at the time of the purWe do not mean to be understood, how- chase of the ticket, then the mere act of a ever, as holding that when the passenger, gateman or brakeman, in making no objecat the time he purchases his ticket, is in- tions to the boarding of the train by the formed by the ticket agent that the train passenger, ought not and will not estop act blindly at the risk of injury to his mas- | The duty of a passenger in the situation of ter and to the passengers committed to his the plaintiff is to use all reasonable means
When any servant of a railroad com- known to herself or suggested by the conpany having the requisite authority mis- ductor to minimize her damage, especially directs a passenger to his injury, the com- when it is conceded, as in this case, that the pany should be responsible therefor; but in fault alleged against the ticket agent in an action for such injury the petition should misleading the passenger was due to inadbe founded upon such misdirection.
vertence; and the passenger cannot recover In Carter v. Southern R. Co. 75 S. C. 355, for loss or injury which could have been 55 S. E. 771, action to recover damages al- avoided by the use of such means. leged to have resulted from the refusal of In the application of this principle of the the conductor to stop his train, which had right and duty of the carrier to correct its been boarded through inadvertent misdirec. mistake and of the duty of the passenger to tion of the ticket agent, at an unscheduled minimize the damage, as a general rule stop, it was held that while a railroad com- where a passenger, on account of the mispany will be liable for damages resulting take of the carrier's agent, boards a train from misdirection of a ticket agent, yet not scheduled to stop at his station, the car. where a passenger refuses to get off ať a rier has a right to correct the mistake by station preceding her destination, where a letting the passenger off at a stopping place local train could be taken to such destina- of that train before passing the passenger's tion a few hours later, and, insisting on the destination, so that he may take the next train stopping at her destination, is car. train scheduled to stop at his destination; ried on and gets off at the first regular stop and it is the duty of the passenger to stop beyond her destination, which necessitates off and wait for such train. a walk back of several miles over a rough such cases, however, the common carrier is, mountain trail, through heat and storm, of course, liable for any damage or loss of -damages for sickness and injury results time resulting from the passenger's stopping ing from such walk could not be re- off which would not have been incident to covered. The court said: "Assuming, waiting for the local train at the point then, that the plaintiff's being on the wrong where the passenger had to commence his train was due to the mistake of the railroad journey.” The court distinguished this case company, and not to any fault of her own, from Richardson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. what were the relative duties in these cir: Co. 71 S. C. 445, 51 S. E. 261, stating that cumstances of the railroad company and the in the Richardson Case the conductor not passenger? Ordinarily the duty of a rail- only refused to stop at the passenger's destiroad company is to stop its train to let off nation, but demanded of the passenger adpassengers at stations to which it has under- ditional fare to the stop beyond, which was taken to carry them. But where, as in this the only stop anywhere in the vicinity of case, a passenger is on a train by the mis. his destination, and upon the passenger's take of a ticket agent, which, under the refusal to pay, stopped the train and put rules of the company, does not stop at the him off against his will, as a trespasser. station called for by his ticket, the prompt In Humphries v. Illinois C. R. Co. 70 and safe transportation of other passengers Miss. 453, 12 So. 155, action to recover damis also to be considered by the conductor in ages alleged to be the result of refusal to deciding whether he will adhere to his stop through train at passenger's destinaschedule or stop for the particular passen- tion, it was held to be a question for the ger; and if, in good faith, he decides it to jury as to whether there was a special conbe his duty not to stop, then it is the duty tract to stop the train at such place, where of the railroad company to correct the mis- there was evidence that a ticket agent sold take of the ticket agent as far as practicable the ticket knowing it was to be used for with the least possible damage and incon- such train, and there was also some evidence venience to the passenger, and to compensate that the train would customarily stop there the passenger for such damage as resulted for the purpose of allowing interstate pasfrom the mistake as the proximate cause. sengers to alight.