Condran v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 April 1895
• Docket Number: 487.
• Citation: 67 F. 522
• Parties: CONDRAN v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

67 F. 522

CONDRAN v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

No. 487.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

April 1, 1895

John Shortley and James G. Day, for plaintiff in error.

Charles B. Keeler, for defendant in error.

Before CALDWELL, SANBORN, and THAYER, Circuit Judges.

CALDWELL Circuit Judge.

The case is stated by Judge Shiras, who tried it in the circuit court, in his charge to the jury as follows:

'In the case now on trial before you it appears from the undisputed evidence in the case that on the evening of June 16, 1891, a passenger train on the defendant's line of railway was derailed at or near a bridge crossing the Coon river, not far from the town of Coon Rapids, in this state that Henry Condran was on the train when it was derailed and was instantly killed; that the plaintiff is the administratrix of his estate, and that she brings this suit to recover the damages caused to the estate of Henry Condran by his death, claiming that the said Henry Condran was a passenger on defendant's train, and that the derailment of the train, and consequent death of said Henry Condran, was caused by the negligence of the railway company. On part of the defendant it is denied that said Henry Condran was a passenger on the train at the time of the accident, or that the accident was due to negligence in any particular on the part of the company. Under the issues thus presented, the question you are to consider and determine is that touching the relation existing between the railway company and the deceased at the time the accident happened. It is not questioned that he was upon the train, but the point in dispute is whether he occupied the relation of a passenger to the company, so as to impose upon the latter the duties and obligations resting upon a carrier of passengers, and which I have already defined to you. On part of the plaintiff it is claimed that the deceased was in fact a passenger, whether he had paid his fare or not, and upon the part of the defendant it is claimed that the conductor permitted him to remain upon the train without paying his fare, in consequence of the statements made by the deceased; that these statements were untrue; that thereby a fraud was committed by the deceased upon the company, and that the deceased could not, by fraudulent misstatements obtain a free ride upon defendant's train, and then hold the company responsible to him the same as though he was a passenger paying fare. If the deceased in fact had money with him, with which he could have paid his fare, but, instead of paying the same, he intentionally misstated his situation to the conductor, and by false representation induced the latter to allow him to remain on the train, then it could not be said that he was rightfully upon the train, but he would be there in fraud of the rights of the company, and the legal relation of carrier and passenger would not in such case exist between him and the company. The company would then owe him no other duty than not to willfully or recklessly injure him, and, as there is no evidence in this case which would justify you in holding that the accident and consequent death of Henry Condran was due to recklessness or willfulness on part of the company, it follows that in case you find that said Condran fraudulently misstated the facts of his situation to the conductor, and as a consequence was allowed to remain on the train without paying his fare, then your verdict must be for the defendant. On the other hand, if the deceased had in fact paid his fare, or if, being without means, he fairly stated his condition and situation to the conductor, and the latter, in consideration of the statements made him, permitted Condran to remain on the train, then the relation existing between Condran and the company would be that of passenger and

...