Charleston Western Carolina Railway Company v. Lizzie Thompson Charleston Western Carolina Railway Company v. George Thompson
| Decision Date | 22 June 1914 |
| Docket Number | No. 751,752,Nos. 751,No. 752,751,s. 751 |
| Citation | 58 L.Ed. 1476,234 U.S. 576,34 S.Ct. 964 |
| Parties | CHARLESTON & WESTERN CAROLINA RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. LIZZIE THOMPSON. CHARLESTON & WESTERN CAROLINA RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. GEORGE THOMPSON |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. F. Barron Grier, W. K. Miller, and T. P. Cothran for plaintiff in error.
Mr. William H. Fleming for defendant in error.
The plaintiff, Lizzie Thompson, sued the railroad company, the plaintiff in error, to recover for personal injuries inflicted upon her while she was a passenger upon a train that was carrying her from South Carolina to Georgia. The railroad pleaded that she was traveling on a free pass that exempted the company from liability, the same having been issued to her gratuitously under the Hepburn act of June 29, 1906, chap. 3591, § 1 [34 Stat. at L. 584, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1288], as wife of an employee. This plea was struck out, subject to the defendant's exception. The defendant also asked for an instruction that if the plaintiff was traveling on a free pass providing that the railroad should not be liable for negligent injury to her person, she could not recover. This was refused and was made a ground for a motion for a new trial, referring to the act of Congress. The motion was overruled seemingly on the notion that by the state law the defendant was liable within the conditions of the free pass. The court of appeals held such a stipulation binding in a free pass, but held that the Hepburn act created an exception, and that a so-called free pass under that act, issued to a member of an employee's family, really was not a free pass, but was issued upon consideration of the services of the employee. After this writ of error was taken it modified its statement so as to say that the jury might infer that the pass was issued for value. But no such issue was before the jury, as the defense had been excluded altogether, and apart from other objections we are of opinion that the change does not help the decision. The railroad company assigns the construction of the court of appeals and the two rulings below as error. There is a motion to dismiss, but we are of opinion that a question is presented under the act.
The main question is whether, when the statute permits the issue of a 'free pass' to its employees and their families, it means what it says. The railroad was under no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Francis v. Southern Pac Co
...statute and that the 'free pass' was nonetheless a gratuity though issued to an employee of the carrier. Charleston & W.C.R. Co. v. Thompson, 234 U.S. 576, 34 S.Ct. 964, 58 L.Ed. 1476. Kansas City So. R. Co. v. Van Zant, 260 U.S. 459, 43 S.Ct. 176, 67 L.Ed. 348, followed in 1923 and hl d th......
-
Clark v. Southern Ry. Co.
...Under the decisions of the United States Supreme Court such a pass is a free pass issued as a gratuity. Charleston, etc., Co. v. Thompson, 234 U. S. 576, 34 Sup. Ct. 964, 58 L. Ed. 1476;Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Chatman, 244 U. S. 276, 37 Sup. Ct. 499, 61 L. Ed. 1131, L. R. A. 1917F, 1128. [......
-
Sassaman v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
...gratuity within the intendment of the Hepburn Act as was the pass to a member of an employee's family in Charleston & W. C. R. Co. v. Thompson, 234 U.S. 576, 34 S.Ct. 964, 58 L.Ed. 1476, which the Chatman case expressly The distinction with respect to the pass in the Chatman case was based ......
-
Thompson v. National R. R. Passenger Corp.
...v. Van Zant, 260 U.S. 459, 468, 43 S.Ct. 176, 177, 67 L.Ed. 348 (1923); Charleston & Western Carolina R. Co. v. Thompson, 234 U.S. 576, 578, 34 S.Ct. 964, 965, 58 L.Ed. 1476 (1914). Early Supreme Court decisions held that a provision in a gratuitously issued pass which released the railroad......