If the company is under a statutory duty to stop the train at the place to which the passenger has purchased a ticket, but nevertheless refusesso to do, it will be no defense to his action for damages that the conductor offered to give him a pass by which he could leave the train at an intervening point and take the next train to his destination.91

§ 2568. Passenger Acting on Erroneous Information Given by the Ticket Agent. It is obviously the duty of the ticket-seller of a railway company to give information to passengers as to what trains will stop at a particular station, and as to what stop-over privileges will be allowed upon a particular ticket, and the like; and the passenger may confidently act upon such information unless he is otherwise informed by the conductor or trainman in charge of a particular train, or unless he neglects other information, or reasonable means of information.92 Where several railroad companies unite and use a common station, called a "union railway station," the common agent appointed to sell tickets for the different companies is the agent of each one of the companies whose ticket he sells; and, as such, he binds it by his statement to the purchaser of a ticket as to the time each particular train leaves, or at which it arrives at a designated point, or as to the condition of the track, as bearing on the ability of the company to run the train through to the designated point, and this, although he is, at the same time, acting as agent for other companies. using the station.93 If, therefore, a passenger, by direction of the ticket agent at a railroad station, gets on board a train which does not stop at the station to which he is destined, he may recover from the company the actual damages occasioned by the mistake.94 Refining on this question, one court has said that, under such circumstances, the passenger has an action for damages for the misdirection made to him by the company through its ticket agent, but not for the refusal of the conductor to stop there, if it be a train which is

distance. If the conductor collected any fare he was bound to collect what he did, and the taking of the fare could not therefore be construed into a special contract to stop at plaintiff's destination.

1 Ohio &c. R. Co. v. People, 29 Ill. App. 561.

" Lake Shore &c. R. Co. v. Pierce, 47 Mich. 277; Texarkana &c. R. Co. v. Anderson, 67 Ark. 123; s. c. 53 S. W. Rep. 673; New York &c. R. Co. v. Winter, 143 U. S. 60; s. c. 36 L. ed. 71; 11 Rail. & Corp. L. J. 146; 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 356.

Turner v. Great Northern R. Co., 15 Wash. 213; s. c. 5 Am. & Eng.

Rail. Cas. (N. S.) 238; 46 Pac. Rep. 243.

Alabama &c. R. Co. v. Heddleston, 82 Ala. 218; s. c. 3 South. Rep. 53. There is a decision to the effect that the fact that the train fails to stop at a station from which a passenger has taken a ticket, contrary to the statement of the agent from whom the ticket was purchased, does not entitle the holder of the ticket to mount a train and ride from a more distant station, without paying additional fare: Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Adams, 60 Ill. App. 571.

forbidden to stop at that place by the regulations of the company.95 But what difference can it make as to by which agent of the company he has been misled? The company has made the contract through one of its agents, and has refused to carry it out through another of its agents, in consequence of which the passenger has been damnified. If a person purchases a ticket to a particular station, and, by mistake, boards a train which does not stop there, obviously he is entitled to ride as far as that station without paying additional fare; but when that station is passed, he must pay additional fare or he becomes liable to be treated as a trespasser. But he can not be treated as a trespasser before reaching the station called for by his ticket; and if he is ejected from the train before reaching it, his ejection will be an unlawful assault, and the railway company will be liable to him in damages as for a tort, and not merely for a breach of its contract.96 Where a ticket reads that it is good if presented on the date of sale shown on the back, and the ticket agent. informs the holder of it that it is good on a later day, and it is presented on that day, and the holder of it is permitted to pass through the turnstile through which passengers must go to the train, and if the dates punched on the back of the ticket are in figures and unintelligible to the passenger, the declarations and acts named are tantamount to the acceptance of him by the company as a passenger, and his subsequent ejection by the conductor puts the company in the wrong, and renders it liable to him in damages. If the ticket. agent from whom the intending passenger is in the act of purchasing his ticket, is informed by him that it is his intention to return from his destination on a particular train in the night, and if that train does not stop at the passenger's station,-it will be the obvious duty of the ticket agent to notify him of that fact; and if, by reason of failing to give him that notice, the passenger is carried beyond his station, the company will be liable to him in damages.98 But the mere act of a

97

95 St. Louis &c. R. Co. v. Atchison, road not passing through L., but 47 Ark. 74. was followed an hour afterwards by another train, starting from the same place, which passed through Pennington v. Illinois &c. R. Co., S. and thence on to L. The passen

Reynolds V. Railroad Co., 13

Ohio C. C. 39.

69 Ill. App. 628.

98 St. Louis &c. R. Co. v. Adcock, 52 Ark. 406; s. c. 40 Am. & Eng. Rail. Cas. 682; 12 S. W. Rep. 874. In another case a passenger was directed by an agent of the carrier to a train then standing in his sight, as one which would convey him to L.. his destination. That train, after running one hundred and fifty miles, deflected at S. to a branch

ger should have got off at S. and waited for this last train. It was held that the passenger was in fault for being miscarried if, at or before reaching the point of divergence, the carrier used such means as would have conveyed to a person of ordinary intelligence, using reasonable care and attention, information of the necessity of his transferring himself to the second train: Bark

ticket agent in selling a ticket for a certain station, shortly before the departure of a train in the direction of that station, does not amount to a representation, on the part of the company, that the particular train will stop at the station at which the ticket is sold.""

§ 2569. Passenger Acting on Erroneous Information Given by Conductor or Train Agent.-It is very clear that a passenger has the right to rely upon any information or assurance made by the conductor in charge of the train, as to whether the train will stop at a particular place, or as to whether the passenger will be allowed to leave the train and resume his passage on a subsequent train on the same ticket, in the absence of notice of a regulation by the carrier, contrary to the statement or assurance of the conductor. 100 The same conclusion has been predicated of information or assurances given by an official called the train agent.101 Where a female passenger applied for a ticket to go on a limited fast train which did not stop at her destination, and the ticket agent refused to sell it to her for that reason, and the company provided a train which stopped at all stations, on which she might have taken passage, but she never

er v. New York &c. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 599. Compare Hobbs v. London &c. R. Co., L. R. 10 Q. B. 111. If the passenger, in such a case, discovered the mistake so that he might have returned to the junction without charge by another train, in season to have taken the train going to his destination, he ought to have done so. His refusal to leave the cars or pay his fare on the route he was then travelling justified his expulsion from the train: Barker v. New York &c. R. Co., supra; s. c. sub nom. Page v. New York &c. R. Co., 6 Duer (N. Y.) 523.

Duling v. Philadelphia &c. R. Co., 66 Md. 120; s. c. 5 Cent. Rep. 570. It has been held that an intending passenger has no legal right to rely upon a statement by the ticket agent at the time he purchases his ticket, that the train is so many minutes late, so as to entitle him to recover from the company because the train leaves before he returns to the station at the time stated by the agent: Ohio &c. R. Co. v. Allender, 59 Ill. App. 620. It seems that the very reverse ought to have been held, unless there is another agent of the company at the station appointed to give such information, as there is in large

railway stations where a so-called "bureau of information" is maintained; or unless the progress of incoming trains is announced on a bulletin board.

100 New York &c. R. Co. v. Winter, 143 U. S. 60; s. c. 36 L. ed. 71; 11 Rail. & Corp. L. J. 146; 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 356; Alabama &c. R. Co. v. Carmichael, 90 Ala. 19; s. c. 8 South. Rep. 87.

101 Tarbell v. Northern &c. R. Co., 24 Hun (N. Y.) 51. In one case the plaintiff rode in the cars, having a ticket that did not give him the right to a discontinuous passage. He stopped at an intermediate point and entered another train, and claimed the right to continue his journey on such ticket, under a permission given by a conductor of the first train. Refusing to pay his fare, he was put off. It appearing that only train agents had the power to modify the force of such tickets, it was held that such expulsion was justifiable, although at the trial the plaintiff testified that it was, in point of fact, a train agent, and not a conductor, that had given him the privilege claimed: Petrie v. Pennsylvania &c. R. Co., 42 N. J. L. 449.

theless boarded the limited train on the assurance of the conductor that he would put her off at her destination, and to whom she paid fare, but he nevertheless carried her beyond her destination,-it was held that, having received notice of the regulation of the company that the train which she presumed to board did not stop at her place of destination, she could not recover damages for being carried beyond such place.102 On the other hand, where a passage ticket conveys no information as to stop-over privileges, if the passenger informs the conductor that he wants to stop over at a certain station, and the conductor promises to "fix him all right" in that particular, when he punches his ticket, and fails to give him a stop-over check, the passenger is entitled to complete his trip on that ticket, if he did not know of any regulation of the carrier to the contrary; and for the refusal on the part of the conductor of a subsequent train to honor it, he may maintain an action for damages against the company.103

§ 2570. Further of the Effect of Mistakes of the Train Conductor.— So if, without fault on his part, the passenger is put to damage by a mistake made by the conductor of the train, he may maintain an action against the company, although a subsequent conductor who refused to correct the mistake was, as between himself and the company, without fault. Thus, where the coupons of a round-trip ticket were detached on the going trip by the conductor, who, by mistake, retained the return coupon and gave the going coupon to the passenger, and the latter did not discover the mistake until he presented it to the conductor on the return trip, and then explained to such conductor how the mistake happened,—it was held that he was entitled to be carried on the going coupon and might recover damages for being ejected.104 Where the conductor has made such a mistake, the passenger is not obliged before entering upon his return passage, to provide himself with a new ticket, or to pay fare on the train, but, in case of ejection, he may sustain an action for damages. 105 A railroad ticket, signed by the purchaser, restricted his right to a continuous. trip, going or returning, and expressly provided that no agent or employé had power to modify the contract. A conductor on the road off at an intermediate

informed the passenger that he could stop

point, and wrote on the ticket to that effect. On resuming his jour

102 Alabama &c. R. Co. v. Carmichael, 90 Ala. 19; s. c. 8 South. Rep. 87. The decision is grossly untenable.

103 New York &c. R. Co. v. Winter, 143 U. S. 60; s. c. 36 L. ed. 71; 11 Rail. & Corp. L. J. 146; 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 356.

104 Pennsylvania Co. v. Bray, 125 Ind. 229; s. c. 25 N. E. Rep. 439.

105 Baltimore &c. R. Co. v. Bambrey (Pa.), 16 Atl. Rep. 67. Similarly. see Lake Erie &c. R. Co. v. Fix. 88 Ind. 381; s. c. 45 Am. St. Rep. 464.

ney, the passenger was ejected by the conductor of a connecting road because of the fact that the trip was not continuous. It was held that the railroad company was not liable, the reason being that the conductor had no authority thus to vary the terms of the contract.100

§ 2571. Passenger Acting upon Information Given by Inferior Employés. It is quite clear that a passenger, or an intending passenger, will not be able to put the carrier in the wrong, because such passenger has acted to his damage upon erroneous information given by a servant of the carrier, unless he was a servant having authority, prima facie at least, to answer inquiries or give information. It has been held that an employé of a street railway company, whose sole duty and authority were to take the register of cars as they came in and to signal conductors when to start out and to send and receive telephone messages, was not such an agent, and that the company would not be responsible in damages to a female passenger by reason of his statement to her that a particular car passed her place of residence.107

§ 2572. Right of Passenger to a Seat.108-It is undoubtedly the duty of a railway carrier to provide his passengers with seats, unless a sudden or unusual influx of passengers more than exhausts the seating capacity of his vehicles.109 It has even been held that the high degree of care which a carrier is bound to exercise in favor of his passengers110 extends to the duty of furnishing seats to passengers in order to protect them from the danger incident to more exposed positions. And if the passenger has purchased a first-class ticket the train conductor must, unless all the seats in the first-class coaches

10 International &c. R. Co. v. Best, 93 Tex. 344; s. c. 55 S. W. Rep. 315. The conductor of a railway train informed a female passenger thereon, that the train did not stop at her destination, but that she would have to get off at another station and wait for another train. A male passenger offered to see her to a hotel, and she thereupon consented to get off at the station named by the conductor. The station where she got off was not an improper or dangerous one, and the conductor had no suspicion of any improper or evil intent on the part of the passenger who proposed to escort her. Instead of escorting her to a hotel, he decoyed her into a saloon, where he abused her and ravished her. It was held that the company was not

liable in damages for this abuse and criminal act: Sira v. Wabash R. Co., 115 Mo. 127; s. c. 21 S. W. Rep. 905.

107 Dillon v. Lindell St. R. Co., 71 Mo. App. 631.

108 This section is cited in §§ 2572, 2970.

100 Bass v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 36 Wis. 450; s. c. 39 Wis. 636; 42 Wis. 654; Willis v. Long Island &c. R. Co., 34 N. Y. 670; s. c. 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 399; Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Patterson. 69 Miss. 421; s. c. 13 South. Rep. 697; 22 L. R. A. 259, and note. 110 Post, § 2722, et seq.

111 International &c. R. Co. v. Williams, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 587; s. c. 50 S. W. Rep. 732; International &c. R. Co. v. Anthony (Tex. Civ. App.), 57 S. W. Rep. 897.