« AnteriorContinuar »
the company from a correction of the error cumstances testified to by plaintiff, the deby the conductor requiring the passenger fendant owed plaintiff no duty to stop its to leave the train at a suitable intermediate fast train at Elys for the purpose of letting point, there to wait for and take passage him off. It was his duty, when informed upon a train which does stop at the passen- by the conductor that the train would not ger's destination. Nor do we hold that stop at Elys, to elect to stop at some one where a passenger makes inquiry of the of the intermediate stations at which the gatekeeper, or those in charge of the train, train would stop before reaching Elys, and as to the train he should take, and, acting this he refused to do, and he has no cause under their directions, is caused to board of action against the defendant. The court the wrong car, that he cannot recover for improperly refused to instruct the jury to lost time and increased expenses necessarily find for the defendant. incurred by reason of such incorrect infor- The judgment is reversed, for proceedings mation. This question is not before us here. consistent with this opinion.
What we do hold is that, under the cir-effect of agreement of conductor to stop that he could bind the railroad company by train.
any such agreement.”
And especially where the passenger must Regulations as to the running and stop have known that the conductor had ping of trains are absolutely necessary for power to make such an agreement from the the transaction of the company's business fact that before the train started the conand for the safety of the employees and pas. ductor informed the passengers that the sengers; and their violation at the will of train did not stop at that station, and could the employee or for the convenience of the not stop there, and it was also shown that passenger ought not to be tolerated. Texas
on the passenger's ticket it was stated that & P. R. Co. v. Ludlam, 6 C. C. A. 454, 13 it was "good only on trains stopping at U. S. App. 540, 57 Fed. 481.
stations named.” Ibid. So, the conductor cannot bind the com- A passenger who contracts with a railroad pany by a promise to stop a train at a place conductor to be left at a station at which where, by the rules and regulations of the such conductor's train is not scheduled to company, it is not permitted to stop. Schif- stop, after having been notified, by being refler v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 96 Wis. 141, fused a ticket for passage to such station by 65 Am. St. Rep. 35, 71 N. W. 97, 3 Am. Neg. that train, that it was against the rules for Rep. 121.
the conductor to stop there, cannot recover And the fact that a conductor takes a damages from the company if the conductor passenger's ticket and agrees to let him off breaks the contract and carries him past the at his place of destination as indicated station; at least, where other trains are prothereby will not bind the company to stop vided by which such station could be the train at that station, contrary to its reached. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Carrules and regulations. Ohio & M. R. Co. v. michael, 90 Ala. 19, 9 L.R.A. 388, 8 So. 87. Hatton, 60 Ind. 12. The court said: “It is
But where a passenger by mistake boards not competent, we think, for a conductor to a train which does not stop at his destiagree with an individual passenger to carry nation, the conductor's agreement to put him to a given place, and stop at that place him off at such place will bind the company to allow him to leave the train, and thus where there is evidence that though by the bind the railroad company, unless the place rules and regulations of the company the at which he is to stop is a regular station train was not permitted to stop there, of the train which he is conducting. Such the conductor frequently did stop the train a power cannot be implied as within the there to let passengers off. Texas & P. R. proper duties of a conductor; nor would it Co. v. Elliott, 22 Tex, Civ. App. 31, 54 S. be consistent with public policy. A railroad W. 410. company that holds itself out to the public as a common carrier of passengers, estab
-effect of taking up ticket or fare. lishes its routes and stations, and advertises its running arrangements, thereby The taking of a ticket or fare by the conpledges itself to the public to run according- ductor does not constitute a binding conly; and if it was in the power of a con- tract upon the company to stop the train at ductor to stop at different stations from the point of destination mentioned in the those established for the lines, or alter the ticket. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Rosenrunning arrangement of the road, to accom- berry, 45 Ark. 256, 2 Am. Neg. Cas. 122; modate a particular passenger, he would Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Randolph, 53 Ill. 510, thereby greatly incommode the public gen. 5 Am. Rep. 60, 2 Am. Neg. Cas. 574; St. erally, for the sake of a single passenger. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Atchison, 47 Ark. The duty of a conductor is to run the trains 74, 14 S. W. 468, 2 Am. Neg. Cas. 136; Hasaccording to the public arrangements, and kins v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 4 Ohio L. he has no power to change them; and a pas. J. 951; Trotlinger v. East Tennessee, V. & senger has no right to infer that a conductor G. R. Co. 11 Lea, 533. has any such power from his general duties So, the fact that a passenger who has as a conductor, and no reason to suppose boarded a train which does not stop at his
destination succeeds in getting his ticket | not exposing him to unusual or extraordiinto the hands of the conductor, and then, nary peril. after the latter has found where he wishes A railroad company may discontinue or to get off, refuses to take it back, adds noth- suspend the right of passengers to ride on ing to the merits of the passenger's case in freight trains to a certain station whenever an action against the company for damages there is necessity for handling freight there, for refusal of the conductor to stop at the and a passenger notified either under this place of destination. Ohio & M. R. Co. v. right or in the customary manner that the Applewhite, 52 Ind. 540.
train would make no stop is in duty bound But, on collecting fare to a station at to leave the train, and if he does not he can which a train is not scheduled to stop, it be be lawfully ejected. Wieland v. Southern P. comes the duty of the conductor to notify Co. 1 Cal. App. 343, 82 Pac. 226. the passenger so paying that the train will
A passenger who refuses to pay fare to not stop at that station, or to carry him to the first place at which the train regularly such station and then give him sufficient stops beyond the place at which the pastime to get off in safety. McNulta v. Ensch, senger wishes to alight, and at which the 134 III. 46, 24 N. E. 631, 2 Am. Neg. Cas. train does not stop, may be lawfully ejected 675.
before his destination is reached, at the
regular stopping place nearest thereto. Right to eject.
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Maxwell, Ala.,
66 So. 669; Logan v. Hannibal & St. J. A passenger who boards a train which R. Co. 77 Mo. 663; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. does not stop at his destination may, when v. Dice, Tex. Civ. App. --, 168 S. W. 478. his mistake is discovered, be required to And there is not a denial of a complete leave the train at the first regular stopping performance of contract to carry a passenplace unless, after the mistake is discovered, ger to his destination where his ticket is the railroad company's agents do something given back to him with an indorsement which precludes them from enforcing the thereon showing that he has a right to proprivilege they had of compelling such pas. ceed to the station indicated thereby on a senger to leave the train short of his desti- train which stops at such station. Louisnation. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. ville & N. R. Co. v. Maxwell, supra. Campbell, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 35, 69 S. W. Under a statute requiring a railroad com451.
pany to stop a train at a junction point to One who, without being misled in any permit passengers to be transferred, the way, boards a train which does not stop at company is under no duty to stop the train her destination, may be required to alight at such point unless there is a passenger to at any regular stopping place where she can be transferred; and so, where, under the get a train to her destination, and the com- rules and regulations of the railroad company will not be liable. Plott v. Chicago & pany, a train will not stop at a junction N. W. R. Co. 63 Wis. 511, 23 N. W. 412. point unless there are passengers to be
So, one who is required to transfer at an transferred to another road, one whose intermediate station to an accommodation destination is such point cannot require the train cannot recover as for a breach by the train to be stopped where there are no pasrailroad company of its duty to permit him sengers to be transferred, and, on refusal to to remain on the train until the place to pay fare to the first stopping place beyond, which he had a ticket was reached. Louis- may be lawfully ejected before such place is ville & N. R. Co. v. Thomason, 6 Ala. App. reached, at the nearest regular stopping 365, 60 So. 506.
place thereto. Logan v. Hannibal & St. J. So, also, one who is forced to leave at R. Co. 77 Mo. 663. another place cannot recover for a wrongful In Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Moore, 98 ejection, in the absence of showing that Tex. 302, 83 S. W. 362, 4 Ann. Cas. 770, a needless force was used. Chicago, St. L. & passenger boarded a train which, under the P. R. Co. v. Bills, 104 Ind. 13, 3 N. E. 611. regulations of the railroad company, stopped
One who is on a train which does not at his destination only to permit passengers stop at his destination, he knowing that fact coming from connecting lines to alight, and when he boarded the train, may be ejected was required to leave at the first regular at any reasonably safe place between stopping station of his train. In an action stations; the company is not required to to recover damages for refusal to carry him carry him to the next station, or to the next to his destination, brought on the theory highway, or the next place that would be that the regulation which allowed passenconvenient for him to get off. New York, gers coming to the defendant's line from C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Willing, 24 Ohio C.C. other roads to get off at all stations, while 474. The court stated that he has no claims denying the same privilege to those travel. upon the company; he is not paying for his ing entirely on its own line, gave to the transportation; he is a trespasser upon the former an "undue and unreasonable prefertrain, and they have a right to relieve them ence or advantage," and subjected the latter selves of him as speedily as possible, but to "undue or unreasonable prejudice or diswithout exposing him to any unusual or advantage," and denied to the latter extraordinary dangers. The mere fact of “reasonable, proper, and equal facilities,” putting him off the train on the railroad within the meaning of the interstate comtrack or within the right of way, in the merce law, the court refused to decide whethnight, if he is unlawfully on the train, is er the statute, if applicable, had that effect,
as in any event the action could not be sus certain place, and especially where, on the tained in the state court, as, by the terms day in question, the train conductor inof the act, it could be enforced only in the formed such passenger that the train would United States courts or before the Interstate not stop at that place, and, according to Commerce Commission.
the evidence, it did not stop there. Fink Tlie conductor is under no obligation to v. Albany & S. R. Co. 4 Lans. 147. take the first opportunity to inform a pas- A passenger purchasing a ticket for transsenger who has gotten on a train not portation to a station on the carrier's line scheduled to stop at his destination without contracts to take his passage on a train previously informing himself, when, where, scheduled to stop at that point. Hancock and how he can go or stop, that the train v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 27 Ky. L. Rep. does not stop at the station to which he is 434, 85 S. W. 210. destined, so that he can exercise the right So, an action does not lie against a railto leave the train at any station he chooses road company for refusal to take one to his before reaching the destination named in destination on its fast train, where he boardhis ticket. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Ludlam, 6 ed a train which did not stop at the place C. C. A. 454, 13 U. S. App. 540, 57 Fed. 481. for which he purchased a ticket, and did The court stated that the conductor on a not offer to pay a full fare to a place where train has many and various duties to per- the train did stop, although he did offer form, all under the regulations of the com- to surrender the ticket and pay the addipany which he is serving, and without proof tional amount to such stopping place, the to show that he is authorized to vary the court stating that the conductor had no rules of the company in regard to the stop: right to accept such ticket for any purpose, ping of his train at a station not permitted it being to a place at which the train did under the rules, his mere silence under such not stop. Ibid. circumstances cannot vary the obligation of A railroad company may eject between the company in respect to the contract of stations one who has boarded a train which carriage.
does not stop at his destination, and who re. Where the first regular stop of the train fuses to pay fare to the first regular stop, is beyond the passenger's destination, he which is beyond the place of his destination, may be ejected upon refusing to pay fare to and need not wait until the distance covered that place. Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. by the ticket has been traveled. Caldwell Co. v. Lightcap, 7 Ind. App. 249, 34 N. E. v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 243; Usher v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 71 467. Otherwise, as the court said, a paskan 375, 80 Pac. 950; Atchison, T. & S. F. senger can compel the company to accept R. Co. v. Gants, 38 Kan. 608, 5 Am. St. Rep. one of two courses: either to stop at the 780, 17 Pac. 54; Flood v. Chesapeake & 0. place of destination, which is just what is R. (0. 25 Ky. L. Rep. 2135, 80 S. W. 184; desired, or carry him further, over a disFink v. Albany & S. R. Co. 4 Lans. 147 ; tance for which he refuses to pay fare. If Albin v. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. 43 Tex. Civ. one by his own wrong or by his own mistake App. 170, 95 S. W. 589.
may compel the stopping of a train at a In such case he becomes trespasser. place not a regular stopping place for that Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Gants, 38 train, one or more persons may take passage Kan. 608, 5 Am. St. Rep. 780, 17 Pac. 54; on the same train, desiring to stop at each Flood v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. 25 Ky. L. station on the road, and upon tendering Rep. 2135, 80 S. W. 184.
tickets for the respective stations, and reAnd is none the less a trespasser although fusing to pay beyond them, force the comhe tenders a fare, if it is one that the con pany to make the train an accommodation ductor is not authorized to receive, or offers train, to the prejudice of its rights and the to pay fare only to a station for which the comfort of the general traveling public. train does not receive passengers. Flood v. But an expulsion at a station before Chesapeake & 0. R. Co. supra.
reaching the place of a passenger's destinaWhere one boards a train which is not tion, on the ground that the train did not scheduled to stop at his destination, he may stop at such place, is unlawful, although, be required to pay his fare to the first regu- before purchasing his ticket, the passenger lar stop, and on refusal be ejected.
knew that the railroad company had proAnd the mere fact that the train was re- mulgated a rule prohibiting that train from quired by law to stop and did stop at such stopping at such place, if, by continuous place on account of railroad crossings, will nonenforcement of the rule, the company not give the passenger a right of action for had permitted it to become obsolete, or if alleged wrongful demanding and receiving the passenger was misled by the conduct of fare to the first regular stop, and the re of the company's ticket agent and conductor, sulting injury to his feelings, Pittsburgh, and thereby induced to believe that the train C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Lightcap, 7 Ind. App. would stop at such place. Missouri, K. & T. 249, 34 N. E. 243.
R. Co. v. Herring, Tex. Civ. App.
130 And he may be ejected between stations. S. W. 1039. Albin y. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. 43 Tex. Civ. And in Pennsylvania Co. v. Wentz, 37 App. 170, 95 S. W. 589.
Ohio St. 333, where one boarded a train And he may be lawfully ejected between which did not stop at his destination, and stations although such occasionally on refusal to pay fare to a point beyond hi stops at the point of his destination, as to destination, the first stopping place of the receive or let off passengers destined for a' train, was ejected between stations, it was
held that, in view of a statute that re- did not stop at his destination, he should be
1 quired all trains to stop at all stations con- put off either at the station where he got taining three thousand inhabitants, it was aboard, or at the first station at which the no defense to an action for ejection that, train stopped, an ejection at a point other by the rules and regulations of the com- than a station or a regular stopping place pany, the train did not stop at the destina was wrongful, and the company was liable, tion of such person, as such place contained although, as in this case, the place at which over three thousand inhabitants.
he was forced to alight was only 1} miles And the court stated further that even from the place where he boarded the train. laying out of view the statute, it was diffi- The opinion does not disclose as to whether cult to maintain the proposition that the the conductor demanded fare to the nearest ejection was justifiable where it was not stopping place, and he attempted to justify at a station nor at any habitation, but in the ejection on the ground that, under the or near a woodland, and the time was 1 rule mentioned, he had a right to expel such o'clock at night. Ibid.
a person while near to or in the vicinity of One purchasing a round-trip railroad the station, although not immediately thereticket good only on the day of purchase may at; but this was held to be untenable. recover damages in case he is ejected from One who boards a train which he should the only train passing his station on its re- know does not stop at a station for which turn trip on that day, for the reason that he has a ticket, in the hope that it will do the ticket is not good on that train, because so, and so afford him an opportunity of the train is not scheduled to stop at that reaching his destination, and who refuses to station. Illinois C. R. Co. v. Harris, 81 pay the additional fare to the first stopping Miss. 208, 59 L.R.A. 742, 95 Am. St. Rep. place upon the conductor's demand, is a 466, 32 So. 309.
passenger within the meaning of a statute And a statement by the agent when selling requiring the ejection of passengers at usual the ticket that in case the only train re- stopping places. St. Louis Southwestern R. turning that day is late, the purchaser may Co. v. Harper, 69 Ark. 186, 53 L.R.A. 220, have difficulty in getting it to stop to let 86 Am. St. Rep. 190, 61 S. W. 911. him off, has no effect upon his rights under Although a conductor may require a pasthe contract. Ibid.
senger who boards a train which does not Nor is the right to return upon that train stop at his destination to leave the train affected by the statement of a flagman, when at a regular stop prior to reaching such the holder of a round-trip ticket attempts destination, or pay fare to a regular stop to board the train, that it does not stop at beyond, yet, if he uses language which imhis destination, and his agreement to leave putes a falschood to such passenger and also the train at the last stop before his destina- disgraceful conduct, which humiliates and tion. Ibid.
distresses the passenger, damages may be reOne who boards a train which does not covered therefor. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. stop at the place of his destination, he hav- v. Morgan, Tex. Civ. App.
138 S. W. ing been prevented from ascertaining that | 216. fact because the ticket office was closed, is entitled, upon offering to pay fare to the
-where passenger is misdirected by emfirst regular stop, to remain on the train
ployee of carrier. as a passenger; and so a refusal by the conductor to receive the fare to such place, and In cases where the passenger relied upon requiring that he leave the train at night in a misdirection by a ticket agent or other a dangerous place, away from any dwelling, employee of the carrier, the first question station, or stopping place, constitutes a in logical order is whether the passenger
had wrongful ejection for which the railroad a right to rely upon such misdirection; or, company is liable. Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. in another form, whether the carrier is reNorris, 17 Ind. App. 189, 60 Am. St. Rep. sponsible for the misdirection. That ques166, 46 S. E. 554, 1 Am. Neg. Rep. 579. tion, so far as misdirection by ticket agents
And one who boarded a train which did is concerned, is discussed in the note to not stop at his destination was held in Rich-Hayes v. Wabash R. Co. 31 L.R.A. (N.S.) mond, F. & P. R. Co. v. Ashby, 79 Va. 130, 232. As shown in that note, the general 52 Am. Rep. 620, to have been wrongfully rule seems to be that a carrier will be bound ejected and entitled to recover damages by representations made by its ticket agent therefor where the conductor refused to per. as to the stoppage of a train at the pasmit him to ride on such ticket to the first senger's station; and most of the cases cited regular stopping place of the train, which under the present heading, whether involvwas short of his destination, and stopped the ing misrepresentations by ticket agents or train in a low swamp, late in the afternoon, other employees, seem to proceed upon that when night was coming on, with no habita- assumption. tion near, and put him off, in the midst of a But in Wells y, Alabama G. S. R. Co. 67 drizzling rain, in an eastern blow or Miss. 24, 6 So. 737, it was held in effect that northeastern storm, though he was sick with a passenger, in taking a train that did not malarial fever.
stop at her destination, acted at her own So, also, in Stevens v. Atchison, T. & S. peril, it appearing that before embarking she F. R. Co. 1 Mo. App. Rep. 247, it was held twice applied to the ticket agent to purchase that under a rule of the railroad company | a ticket to such destination, but was refused that if a passenger got aboard a train which because the train did not stop there, not
withstanding that she was directed by the That an action for wrongful ejection will station policeman to board the train, and lie where one boards train in reliance on the conductor collected a fare which was the the information of the ticket agent that the proper amount for transportation to her train will stop at his destination, and is destination, but was also proper for the required to leave before such point is nearest stopping place.
reached, was held in Kansas City, Ft. S. & Assuming, however, that the passenger was M. R. Co. v. Little, 66 Kan. 378, 61 L.R.A. entitled to rely upon the misrepresentation 122, 97 Am. St. Rep. 376, 71 Pac. 820, 13 by the ticket agent or other employee, it is Am. Neg. Rep. 524; Central R. & Bkg. Co. clear that he has some right or remedy v. Roberts, 91 Ga. 513, 18 S. E. 317, Atkinagainst the carrier in the event of its failure son v. Southern R. Co. 114 Ga. 146, 55 to discharge him at his destination, but there L.R.A. 223, 39 S. E. 888, 11 Am. Neg. Rep. is a conflict of opinion as to the character 32; Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. and extent of that right or remedy. Some of Reynolds, 55 Ohio St. 370, 60 Am. St. Rep. the cases—and considering only those within 706, 45 Atl. 712. the scope of the present note, they are per- Unless he knew or had reason to believe haps in the majority—take the view that that the information given him by the ticket even when the passenger has been misdi- agent was incorrect, or that there was a rule rected by an employee for whose act the or regulation of the company making the carrier is responsible, nevertheless it is the agent incompetent to give the information, passenger's duty, at the request of the con- or prohibiting the conductor from stopping ductor, to leave the train at the first station the train at that station. Central R. & Bkg. before reaching his destination, or to pay Co. v. Roberts, 91 Ga. 513, 18 S. E. 317; his fare to the first station beyond such Atkinson v. Southern R. Co. 114 Ga. 146, destination, and that in the event of his re- 55 L.R.A. 223, 39 S. E. 888. fusal to do so, he may be ejected, without So, also, one who, before purrhasing a unnecessary force, and if so ejected, will ticket, is told by the ticket agent that a have no right of action as for a wrongful specified train stops at a given place, and is ejection, his remedy in such event being con- given a time-table showing that such train fined to an action for breach of the contract, is scheduled to stop, has by the contract or at least an action based upon the misdi. a right to have the train stop at such place, rection rather than upon a wrongful ejec- and his ejection at the last preceding station. Other cases, however, as subsequently ition is wrongful. McDonald v. Central R shown, take the view that while the com- Co. 72 N. J. L. 280, 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 505, pany would have no right to complain of the 111 Am. St. Rep. 672, 62 Atl. 405, 19 Am. conductor's act in ejecting the passenger Neg. Rep. 378. in such circumstances, the ejection is never- And if a passenger is informed by a ticket theless wrongful as between the carrier and agent at the time he purchases his ticket the passenger, and the latter may complain that he will reach his destination that night, of it as such. It may be noted here that a and he boards the only train which passes similar conflict of authority exists as to the his destination that night, is rightfully on right and duty of a passenger when, through board that train as a passenger for his destithe fault of other employees of the carrier, nation, and his ejection before reaching his he is unable to present to the conductor the destination, upon refusal to pay fare to the proper token of his right to transportation. first stop beyond, is unlawful, the rule of See notes in 43 L.R.A. 706; 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) the company not to stop that particular 695; and 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 779.
train at his destination, whether reasonable As to the duty of passenger to pay fare or not, being subordinate to the rights of wrongfully demanded, in order to avoid ex. i the passenger on board under a contract pulsion and lessen damages, see notes to made under circumstances implying that the Sprenger v. Tacoma Traction Co. 43 L.R.A. train would stop there. Richardson & At706, and Light v. Detroit & M. R. Co. 34 lantic Coast Line R. Co. 71 S. C. 444, 51 L.R.A.(N.S.) 282.
S. E. 261. The case of a passenger on a wrong train And in Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Scott, through misdirection by an employee for 141 Ky. 538, 34 L.R.A.(N.S.) 206, 133 S. W. whose act the carrier is responsible may per- 800, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 547, it was held that haps be distinguished so far as the question if a ticket agent agreed with an excursio under discussion is concerned, from the case party that a through train would make an of a passenger who, through the fault of an unscheduled stop, and in reliance on such employee of the carrier, has not the proper agreement the party boarded such train exticket or token of the right to transporta pecting that it would stop at such station, tion. In the former case, compliance with they are entitled to compensatory damages the passenger's demand that he be dis- at least for wrongful ejection where the concharged at his destination would necessitate ductor refused to stop the train at their
interruption of the regular train destination, and required them to leave at schedule and involve perhaps risks of acci- the first regular stop preceding. dent or delay that the carrier ought not to In Pittsburgh, C. c. & St. L. R. Co. v. assume; whereas in the latter case, compli. Reynolds, 55 Ohio St. 370, 60 Am. St. Rep. ance with the passenger's demand would at 706, 45 Atl. 712, in denying the contention most merely involve the risk of a loss of of the railroad company that the action fare in the event that the passenger's claim should be for breach of contract, the court is false or mistaken.
said: “There are some cases which seem to