Davenport v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 October 1918 |
| Docket Number | 14740. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | DAVENPORT v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Grant County; Sam B. Hill Judge.
Action by W. R. Davenport against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed, with instructions to grant a new trial.
Geo. W Korte, of Seattle, and R. M. Dye, of Davenport, for appellant.
W. E Southard, of Wilson Creek, for respondent.
The appellant is the owner of a railway running from Seattle through Warden, Wash., and eastward; and also of a connecting line which runs from Warden to Ruff, Wash., and other points.
The respondent on January 31, 1917, purchased a ticket from the appellant's agent at Seattle, which entitled him to transportation from Seattle to Ruff, Wash. On the evening of that day he boarded one of the appellant's trains at Seattle, upon which he was carried to Warden, where it was necessary for him to change trains. The respondent arrived at Warden on the main line passenger train at about 4:15 a. m. on February 1, 1917. The train on the branch line did not leave Warden until 8 a. m. The respondent left the main line train at Warden and went into the waiting room owned and maintained by the appellant, to await the departure of the train for Ruff. At that time the appellant employed to handle its business at the station at Warden two men. The day man worked from 8 a. m. until 5 p. m., when the night man came on duty, remaining from 5 p. m. until 6:30 p. m., when the depot and waiting room were closed, and were reopened again at 11 p. m., when the night man came on duty and kept open until 4:30 a. m.; the depot being then closed until 8 a. m. These hours of duty and of keeping open the waiting room were, it is claimed by the appellant, fixed by the rules and regulations promulgated by it some time before, and which were in full force and effect, and posted on the blackboard in the waiting room, where they could readily be seen.
At about 4:30 a. m. on the morning in question, while the respondent and one other person were in the waiting room, the appellant's agent then in charge informed the respondent that he was about to close the depot and waiting room, and that the respondent would have to leave and go to the hotel. At that time there were two hotels located in Warden, one about a block from the depot, and the other about 2 1/2 blocks from the depot, both of which were kept open so that any one might enter the office; but neither had a night clerk, and one entering the hotel would have to ring a bell provided, in order to receive attention. At the time the appellant's agent informed the respondent that he must leave the waiting room as it was to be closed the respondent claims to have shown the agent his ticket, and informed him that he was a through passenger for Ruff; though this is denied by the agent. In any event, without any force or violence of any kind, and without any insulting or abusive language or conduct upon the part of the appellant's agent, the respondent vacated the waiting room upon the request or demand of the agent, and the door was locked. The respondent claims to have stood outside discussing the situation for a few moments with the other person who was ordered from the waiting room at the same time, and then to have gone to a nearby hotel, where he received shelter until about 6:30 on the same morning. The weather was cold, the temperature being at about zero, and the respondent had no overcoat; and he says he was not dressed so as to remain exposed to the cold. At about 6:30 a. m. the respondent voluntarily left the hotel, returned to the station, which was still locked, and remained there on the outside in the cold voluntarily for a considerable...
To continue reading
Request your trial