Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Blocher

• Decision Date: 27 June 1867
• Parties: THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY v. GEORGE D. BLOCHER.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

27 Md. 277

THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY v. GEORGE D. BLOCHER.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 27, 1867

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Allegany County.

The facts in this case, as also the exceptions which were taken at the trial below, are set out with sufficient fullness in the opinion of the Court.

The cause was argued before BOWIE, C.J., BARTOL and WEISEL, J.

Thomas J. McKaig, Jr., and Thomas J McKaig, for the appellant, contended:

That the appellee's prayer ought not to have been granted:

1st. Because the appellee by purchasing a ticket, and taking his seat as a passenger, subjected himself to the rules of the road, and of all railroads, that he would produce the ticket when called for by the conductor, as evidence of his having paid his fare. The prayer does not leave it to the jury to find whether the appellee did so produce and give up the ticket he received at Cumberland, to the conductor, for he may have exchanged tickets with the party who held the Baltimore ticket, and taken from him a Martinsburg ticket.

2d. Because if the plaintiff failed to produce a Baltimore ticket, he was therefore bound to pay the fare from Martinsburg to Baltimore, and in that event the measure of his damages would have been, and ought to have been, only the $3.70. Bosley vs. The Chesapeake Ins. Co., 3 G. & J., 450; Chew's Adm'rs vs. Beall, 13 Md. Rep., 348; Md. & Del. R R. Co. vs. Porter, 19 Md. Rep., 458; Adams vs. Capron et al., 21 Md. Rep., 186.

The appellant's first, second and third prayers ought to have been granted:

1st. Because, by the ticket system adopted on all railroads, the duties of the passenger and the road are mutual; first, that the passenger shall ask for and pay for the ticket he wants and that the agent of the road shall give him the proper ticket; if, therefore, the appellee received a Martinsburg ticket instead of a Baltimore ticket, or if he had lost his ticket, or exchanged it for another and a differet ticket, he could not recover because he was forced to pay the additional fare. His remedy would have been for the deception or mistake in giving him the wrong ticket.

2d. Because when a party is bound to procure the evidence of his right to a seat, and accepts that evidence, he is bound by the evidence.

3d. Because if the third prayer cannot be granted, the whole ticket system is of no service to the Company, and of no use to the passenger. If the passenger is not bound by the ticket while on the journey, the Company has no protection from fraud. Redfield on Railways, page 24, secs. 26, 27 and 28; The People vs. Caryl, 3 Parker, Crim. Rep., (N. Y.,) 326; Hibbard vs. N.Y. and Erie R. R. Co., 15 N.Y. Rep., (1 Smith,) 455; The Northern Railroad Company vs. Page, 22 Barbour, 130; Beebe vs. Ayres, 28 Barbour, 275.

The appellant's sixth prayer ought to have been granted, because if the jury believed that the appellee had not a ticket from Cumberland to Baltimore, and had not delivered such a ticket to the conductor, then the appellee could only recover for the unncessary force used in compelling payment of the fare. Redfield on Railways, 25, sec. 26, sub-sec. 4.

The appellant's seventh and eighth prayers ought to have been granted, because if the conductor committed an assault on the appellee, such assault was not within the line of his duty, and he was personally responsible to the appellee for said assault.

And even if the conductor did compel him to pay the fare from Martinsburg to Baltimore, if he used no more compulsion that the conduct of the appellee made it necessary to use, and there is no evidence to show that unnecessary force was used, there was no reason why the jury should be instructed to allow vindictive damages.

J. H. Gordon, for the appellee.

On the Third Exception:--The appellee's prayer states the law of the case correctly and favorably to the appellants. 1 Parsons on Contracts, 696 to 700, (2 d Edition); Stockton vs. Frey, 4 Gill, 406; Stokes vs. Saltonstall, 13 Peters, 181; Story on Bailments, secs. 592, 593, 598, 600, (4 th Edition); Bretherton vs. Wood, 3 Brod. & Bing., 54.

The first, second, third, sixth, seventh and eighth prayers of the appellants were properly rejected. They all go on the erroneous idea that the appellee was not responsible unless the wrong complained of was done by the conductor of the train, or that the conductor or ticket agent designed to wrong the appellee, or were incompetent, or that the wrong was sanctioned or adopted by the appellants.

The responsibility of the Company covers the conduct of all its agents. It makes no difference to the rights of the appellee whether the wrong done him, resulted from the negligence of the conductor, or ticket agent, or any other agent of the Company. If he had the right ticket the conductor should not have put him off; if he had not the right ticket, the ticket agent should have given him the right one. The corporation exists and acts only by its agents, and by putting them in their various places it consents to be bound by their acts. Even if the corporation had forbidden the particular act, it would be responsible for it. The competency of the agent is no protection, if he did not act properly in the particular case. Story on Agency, sec. 452; Angell & Ames on Corporations, sec. 382; Redfield on Railways, page 381, sec. 169, sub-secs. 6, 7, 8, 9 and notes, (2 d Edition); Philadelphia & Reading R. R. Co. vs. Derby, 14 Howard, 468; McElroy and wife vs. Nashua & Lowell R. R. Co., 4 Cushing, 400; Rex vs. Medley and others, 6 Car. & Payne, 292; Sleath vs. Wilson, 9 Car. & Payne, 607.

OPINION

BOWIE C.J.

This appeal presents an action for damages, brought by the appellee against the appellants for injuries sustained by him as a passenger. The nar. avers, in substance, that the appellants, being a corporation owning a railroad between Cumberland and Baltimore for the transportation of passengers, the appellee was received as a passenger, to be conveyed from Cumberland to Baltimore, and paid the regular compensation established therefor by the appellants; by reason whereof the appellants were bound to convey the appellee safely, etc., and to treat him civilly and properly, but the appellants had rude and incompetent servants on the train, who abused and injured the appellee, dragged him from his seat and extorted from him money beyond the established compensation, and other wrongs.

The defendants pleaded not guilty, on which issue was joined. Three exceptions were taken by the appellants, the first of which was abandoned at the argument in this Court. The second was taken to the exclusion of evidence offered by the appellants; and the third, to the granting of the appellee's prayer, and the rejection of certain enumerated prayers of the appellants.

At the trial, among other things, the appellee proved the purchase of a ticket from Cumberland to Baltimore, at the office of the appellants in the former place. That after travelling five or ten miles on the way, the conductor asked for his ticket, which was then delivered to him. After passing Martinsburg, it was again demanded by the conductor, and on being told he had delivered it to him, a difficulty ensued, when, under threat of expulsion, he was compelled to pay the additional fare from Martinsburg to Baltimore; the conductor giving him a certificate of such payment.

The appellee further proved that the attention of those in the car and around, was called to the dispute, and some of them got up on their feet and stood around.

The appellants proved by the conductor, that on that evening, he went through the train, and took up all tickets to Martinsburg inclusive. There were very few on the express train, not more than half a dozen. After leaving Martinsburg, he went through the train to take up the tickets to Harpers Ferry; he came to the appellee, who said his ticket was to Baltimore, and that he, the conductor, had taken it up. A controversy then ensued, the result of which was the payment of the additional sum, upon the conductor's giving a certificate of its payment. The appellants then proved the mode of keeping and distributing the tickets at the Cumberland office.

It was proposed by the appellants to ask the witness what was the system adopted at all other stations on the road, and whether, in the working of this system, mistakes had or had not frequently occurred by giving the wrong ticket, but the appellee objected, and the Court refused to permit the question to be answered, to which the appellants excepted. This constituted their second bill of exceptions.

The ruling of the Court in this bill of exceptions, seems entirely correct. No objection is...