Carter v. Southern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 March 1906
• Citation: 55 S.E. 771,75 S.C. 355
• Parties: CARTER v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

55 S.E. 771

75 S.C. 355

CARTER v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 31, 1906

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Union County; Klugh Judge.

Action by Mamie Isabel Carter against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Sanders & De Pass, for appellant. V. E. De Pass for respondent.

WOODS J.

The plaintiff, Mrs. Carter, recovered a judgment of $800 against the defendant, Southern Railway Company, for injuries which she alleges resulted from defendant refusing to stop its train and put her off at Zirconia, N. C., to which point she held a ticket, purchased at Union, S. C., where she had taken the train. The defendant's appeal raises interesting questions as to the right of a passenger holding a ticket to a station at which the train he is on does not stop.

The defendant had two daily trains passing Union S. C., and Zirconia, N. C., known as "No 9" and "No. 14"; the first leaving Union at 9 o'clock a. m., and the second about 2 o'clock p. m. No. 14 was a local train scheduled to stop at Zirconia. No. 9 was scheduled to stop at the more important stations, not including Zirconia. These trains it will be convenient to designate the "local train" and the "through train." Accompanied by her husband, the plaintiff, on July 31, 1904, boarded No. 9, the through train, with a ticket to Zirconia. As she and her husband testify, he bought her ticket and his own 10 or 15 minutes before the arrival of the train, the ticket agent telling them they would reach Zirconia about 12 o'clock. This statement, if made by the agent, could only refer to the through train, as the local train did not leave Union until about 2 o'clock. The conductor told the plaintiff he could not stop his train at Zirconia, and suggested to her and her husband that they should get off at Saluda, the next stop before reaching Zirconia, and wait there for the local train or go on to Flat Rock, the next stop beyond. The plaintiff refused to get off at Saluda, and insisted on being put off at Zirconia, because she had written to her friends to meet her there and take her a short distance in the country to her father's home which was her ultimate destination. The train did not stop at Zirconia, and the plaintiff, in company with her husband, got off at Flat Rock, from which point she walked two miles to the residence of her sister, intending to spend the night there and walk to her destination the next day, a distance of about nine miles. Not finding her sister at home, she and her husband continued their journey on foot the entire distance over a rough mountain road or trail. The plaintiff and her husband testify that from this journey on a hot day, in the rain, she suffered much hardship, resulting in sickness from which at the time of the trial she had not recovered; and it was for this suffering and sickness that the plaintiff demanded and recovered against the defendant damages as the proximate result of its refusal to stop its train at Zirconia. In demanding to be put off at Zirconia and refusing to get off at Saluda and wait for the next train which arrived at Zirconia late the same afternoon, the plaintiff, as she testified, had in view the fact that in going on to Flat Rock she would have to walk back nine miles; and so she informed the conductor.

The testimony of the conductor differed little from that of the plaintiff, except that he testified that before reaching Spartanburg he suggested to her that city as a convenient place to wait for the next train, while this was denied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff testified that she absolutely refused to consider the conductor's suggestion to get off at Saluda, and that he did not offer her transportation from Saluda to Zirconia on the next train, while on this point the conductor said that the plaintiff and her husband first agreed to stop at Saluda, and he actually indorsed the tickets so as to give them passage on the next train, and they then changed their minds and concluded to go on to Flat Rock.

From the foregoing statement it will be seen that there is little dispute as to the material facts; and the question in the case was whether the plaintiff, having refused to get off at Saluda and take the local train, had a right to go on to Flat Rock and recover of the defendant damages for the suffering and sickness due to her long walk. In other words, was the hardship of the journey and the sickness resulting from it the natural and proximate outcome of the defendant's failure to stop its train and let the plaintiff off at Zirconia? This question is presented with great elaboration in the exceptions to the charge, covering 11 printed pages but we think the vital point is sufficiently indicated by the tenth request to charge and the court's modification of it. The request was: "If it appears that, through a mistake or oversight, the agent sold a ticket for a train not scheduled to stop at the station she wanted to get off at, and the plaintiff got on board of such train, and while on the train was informed by the conductor before reaching such station that it did not stop there, but that there was another train following on that day on which she could go to her station, and advised her to get off the train she was on and get on the other train, and she refused to do so, and remained on and was carried by to another station, and then got off and walked through the country and was made sick, when, if she had gotten off and taken the other train, this would not have happened--then she cannot recover any damages." The modification was: "That is subject to the same modification. In fact, it involves the same question as to the law and facts both, but it involves the same consideration that applies to the preceding request. I charge you that you must consider the circumstances in which the plaintiff was placed on this particular occasion, not only the circumstances that confronted her on the train, but the circumstances that would have confronted her if she had gotten off the train and waited for another train when it reached the station that she was going to; that is, if you find that there was an engagement by some party to meet her at that station at that particular train, and that such engagement would be broken if she got off the train and waited and got on another train that arrived at a later hour, then it is a matter for the passenger to consider which course she would adopt, and if she arrives at the conclusion which a person of ordinary prudence and reason under similar circumstances would arrive at, then she performs her duty with reference to the defendant. And any act or conduct on her part by allowing herself to be carried by the station would not, under these...