D. C. Transit System, Inc. v. Brooks, 205

• Decision Date: 22 February 1972
• Docket Number: No. 205,205
• Citation: 264 Md. 578,287 A.2d 251
• Parties: D. C. TRANSIT SYSTEM, INC. v. Arthur Lee BROOKS.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 578

264 Md. 578

287 A.2d 251

D. C. TRANSIT SYSTEM, INC. v. Arthur Lee BROOKS.

No. 205.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Feb. 22, 1972.

Frank F. Roberson, Washington, D. C. (Kevin P. Charles, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.

Donald P. McLaughlin, Hyattsville, for appellee.

Argued before HAMMOND, C. J., and BARNES, SINGLEY, SMITH and DIGGES, JJ.

SMITH, Judge.

For the want of a nail the shoe was lost,

For the want of a shoe the horse was lost,

For the want of a horse the rider was lost,

For the want of a rider the battle was lost,

For the want of a battle the kingdom was lost-

And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Poor Richard's Almanac-Benjamin Franklin

Little things were translated into big things in this case where a 15 cent fare dispute resulted in the entry of a judgment which included $20,000 for punitive damages against appellant, D. C. Transit System, Inc. (D. C. Transit). It here appeals the punitive damage portion of that judgment. There was an award of $10,000 for false imprisonment and another of $10,000 for malicious prosecution. It does not appeal the awards for compensatory damages. We shall affirm the award relative to false imprisonment and reverse as to malicious prosecution.

We recite the facts bearing in mind that we are obliged to assume the truth of all evidence tending to sustain the party against whom a motion for directed verdict was directed, as well as all inferences of fact reasonably and fairly deducible therefrom. Garfinkel v Schwartzman, 253 Md. 710, 722, 254 A.2d 667 (1969). The request for an instruction that Brooks was not entitled to exemplary damages amounted to a motion for a directed verdict on that issue.

It all began when appellee Arthur Lee Brooks (Brooks) boarded a D. C. Transit bus in the District of Columbia. Fare to his destination at Mt. Rainier, Maryland, was 45 cents. Fare within the District of Columbia was 30 cents. Fare from the D. C. line to Maryland points was 30 cents. If he paid the full fare when he boarded in the District he should have paid 45 cents and identification would have been provided. A person boarding the bus and paying 30 cents would be obliged to pay an additional 30 cents when he got off in Maryland unless he had proof that he had boarded in the District since it would be assumed that he had boarded in Maryland.

When Brooks boarded the bus he paid 30 cents. When he got off in Maryland he put 15 cents in the fare box. He says he gave the driver a transfer at that time to indicate that he had boarded in the District, that this is the procedure he had been following. He claimed the driver told him the fare had gone up to 60 cents.

As is to be expected in such situations, the bus driver's version is different. He claimed Brooks put 15 cents in the fare box, that he didn't have any sort of a zone check, 'not even a transfer,' that he told Brooks the fare was 30 cents and tried to explain to him but 'couldn't get a word in edgewise,' that as soon as he said the fare was 30 cents Brooks started saying that he rode the bus every day, called the driver an abusive name, said he wasn't going to let the driver 'rob him,' that he '(knew) his rights,' that when the driver asked him for his name he wouldn't even listen to that, that he said, 'Let me off the bus or else.' and then reached in his back pocket. Brooks denied that the driver asked him for his name.

A scuffle ultimately ensued between a passenger who was an employee of D. C. Transit and Brooks. Brooks claimed that before that scuffle began that the bus driver had said to him, 'We are going to have you arrested.' Brooks claimed that the driver then headed for the police department. He also said that during the scuffle between Chapman, the off duty D. C. Transit employee, and himself, the driver held him while the off duty employee hit him. He also claimed that the driver hit him with his fist from the back. 'After they thought they had (him) under control then they took (him) to the police department.'

Brooks said that at the police station Chapman, the off duty employee, had him by one arm and the driver by the other. At that point Chapman 'reached in his pocket, pulled out a knife, put it in (Brooks') left pocket, and said, 'We are going to fix you." This took place 'right at the police door, at the stationhouse door.' When they 'got inside the door and the policeman was there, Mr. Chapman told the policeman that (Brooks) had a knife.' The At the police station a D. C. Transit supervisor appeared, having been sent by the central dispatcher. A part of his duties was 'to attend scenes of incidents' such as this. He advised the driver that it was against company policy to press charges for failure to pay fares. He also told the driver that the proper fare was 45 cents. Brooks says that the driver said, 'Oh, I thought it was 60 cents.' The supervisor testified that when he advised the driver that it was against company policy to press charges for nonpayment of fare the driver 'said that it didn't matter, because he was leaving.' The driver testified that his interpretation of company policy was that it was 'more or less up to the operator's discretion' as to whether charges should be pressed in such situations, that this was what he 'was taught in the training period (he) went through with D. C. Transit.' As Brooks' declaration puts it, he was charged with 'unlawfully refusing to pay his * * * bus fare.' He was subsequently found not guilty.

driver's version is that he saw in Brooks' hand 'what looked like the partial part of a handle to a knife,' and that he told the police. They then found a knife on Brooks.

In this action Brooks sued the driver, the off duty employee, and D. C. Transit. The off duty employee was never served and the action against him was dismissed. Only two counts in the declaration were actually submitted to the jury, the action for false arrest and the one for malicious prosecution. On false imprisonment the jury returned a verdict of $750 for compensatory damages against the driver and D. C. Transit, and $500 punitive damages against the driver and $10,000 punitive damages against D. C. Transit. On malicious prosecution its verdict was $450 compensatory damages against D. C. Transit, $100 compensatory damages against the driver, $250 punitive damages against the driver, and $10,000 punitive damages against D. C. Transit. The judgment ultimately entered was for compensatory damages of $750 against the driver and D. C. Transit on the false arrest count with punitive damages of $500 against the

driver and $10,000 against D. C. Transit. On the malicious prosecution count judgment was [287 A.2d 254] entered in the amount of $100 compensatory damages against the driver and D. C. Transit with $250 punitive damages against the driver and $10,000 punitive damages against D. C. Transit. Only D. C. Transit appealed. It does not contest the judgment for compensatory damages but contests only the punitive damage awards.

FALSE ARREST

D. C. Transit urges that punitive damages should not be awarded against a carrier 'when its bus driver for a short time detained a passenger whom the driver believed had not paid the proper fare.' It suggests that nowhere in the evidence can there be found support for a finding of 'actual malice' toward Brooks an claims that there must be a showing of 'actual malice' to support an award of punitive damages.

In Dennis v. Baltimore Transit Co., 189 Md. 610, 56 A.2d 813 (1948), Judge Delaplaine discussed for the Court the issue of punitive damages for false arrest stating:

'We specifically hold that, in a suit for damages brought by a passenger for false arrest made upon request of the conductor, it must be shown by the plaintiff in order to recover punitive damages that the conductor not only acted wrongfully but without just cause or excuse, and with the evil motive to injure and oppress, or at least with a reckless disregard of the rights of the person injured. Smith v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co., 87 Md. 48, 38 A. 1072; Fotheringham v. Adams Express Co., 10 Cir., 36 F. 252, 1 L.R.A. 474. Where the jury determine in a suit for false arrest that the arrest, even though unjustifiable, was requested in the honest assertion of a supposed right while in the discharge of duty, and was not from malice, punitive damages Judge (later Chief Judge) Henderson put it slightly differently for the Court in Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Barrack, 210 Md. 168, 122 A.2d 457 (1956), when he said:

should not be awarded. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. Hoeflich, 62 Md. 300, 307, 50 Am.Rep. 223.' Id. at 617, 56 A.2d at 817.

'Although the allowance of punitive damages is somewhat anomalous and has been rejected in a few states, it has been generally recognized. Prosser, Torts 2d Ed., p. 9. It has long been recognized in Maryland. In Bernheimer v. Becker, 102 Md. 250, 62 A. 526, a case of assault and false imprisonment, it was said that to justify an award of punitive damages there must be circumstances tending to show that the wrong was inflicted maliciously or wantonly or with circumstances of contumely and indignity, citing Sloan v. Edwards, 61 Md. 89, 100. In Heinze v. Murphy, (180 Md. 423, 24 A.2d 917 (1942)), a case of assault and false imprisonment against a policeman, it was said 180 Md. at page 434, 24 A.2d at page 922, that 'where damages beyond compensation, to punish the party guilty of a wrongful act, are asked, the evidence must show wanton, or malicious motive, and it must be actual and not constructive or implied." Id. at 176, 122 A.2d at 461.

The facts we have set forth would constitute a sufficient basis for a jury to find that the driver was motivated by malice when he unlawfully detained Brooks. This includes Brooks' testimony that the driver started for the police station almost as soon as Brooks disputed the amount of the fare, Brooks' testimony as to the driver's assault upon him, and Brooks' assertion that the...