Dennis v. Baltimore Transit Co.

• Decision Date: 16 January 1948
• Docket Number: 74.
• Citation: 56 A.2d 813,189 Md. 610
• Parties: DENNIS v. BALTIMORE TRANSIT CO.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

56 A.2d 813

189 Md. 610

DENNIS v. BALTIMORE TRANSIT CO.

No. 74.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 16, 1948

Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; E. Paul Mason, Judge.

Action by William E. Dennis against the Baltimore Transit Company for false arrest. From a judgment for plaintiff in an unsatisfactory amount, he appeals.

Affirmed.

Louis S. Ashman, of Baltimore, for appellant.

Eben J D. Cross, of Baltimore (Philip S. Ball, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.

DELAPLAINE, Judge.

William E. Dennis, appellant, a colored man, 48 years old, alleged in this suit for damages that, while he was a passenger on a street car operated by the Baltimore Transit Company, the conductor unjustifiably and maliciously ordered his arrest on a false criminal charge.

On Sunday afternoon, April 28, 1946, appellant, a clerk employed at the Baltimore post office, entered the rear door of a Fayette street car at Calvert Street. He and Frank Sewell colored, aged 33, also an employee at the post office, were the last of about ten people who boarded the car at that intersection. The car was not equipped with a fare box, but the fares were taken by the conductor when the passengers entered. Sewell claimed that he handed the conductor, Howard Duff, a two-trip slip (good for a fare upon payment of 5 cents) and a quarter of a dollar. He waited for a few moments and when the conductor asked him what he was waiting for, he replied: 'For my change.' Appellant then interposed: 'He is right. He gave you a quarter and a two-trip slip.' Thereupon the conductor said: 'What have you got to do with it? You two guys are slick guys. I have seen your kind before.' Appellant then said: 'I saw him give you a quarter. You have it in your hand.' The conductor told the men to sit down, and after the car had gone one block west of the post office, each took a seat, but near St. Paul Street appellant went back to the conductor and insisted: 'Why don't you give the man his money?' The conductor told him to sit down, and he would take care of it as soon as the passengers were seated. It is admitted that Sewell got his 20 cents change. Appellant claims that he did not cause any disturbance in the car. However, he admits that he said to the conductor: 'What right have you to order us around like criminals? We are respectable citizens.'

The climax of the dispute came after the car stopped at Liberty Street. The conductor requested the motorman to wait until he could get a policeman. About five minutes later, when he returned with an officer, the latter ordered the two men out of the car, and walked with them to the call box on Hanover Street. The two men protested that they were not guilty of any offense. The policeman decided to wait until the street car returned from the loop to inquire what charge the conductor wanted to make. When the car came back to Liberty Street, he asked the conductor what his charge was, and he replied: 'Disorderly conduct.' By that time the police car had arrived, and the two accused men were taken in the police car to the Central Police Station. After their cases were listed on the docket, each was assigned to a cell for the night, but each was informed that he could be released pending hearing before the magistrate by depositing $26.50. Appellant had the cash in his pocket, and Sewell borrowed the money. They tendered the collateral and were then released from custody. On the following morning the two men appeared before the police magistrate. Conductor Duff also appeared at the hearing as prosecuting witness, but the cases were dismissed, and the collateral was returned.

Appellant and Sewell thereupon instituted suits against the transit company. The suits were tried together before the Superior Court of Baltimore City, and the trial judge gave a verdict in favor of each plaintiff against the company for the sum of $500. The judge stated that he awarded these amounts as compensatory damages, and made no allowance for punitive damages. There was no appeal from the judgment entered in favor of Sewell. Appellant contends (1) that the trial judge erred in refusing to award him punitive damages, and (2) that $500 does not fully compensate him for his actual injuries.

It is an established principle of the common law that a passenger on a common carrier is entitled to protection against the misconduct of the carrier's servants. Their misconduct while transacting the carrier's business and acting within the general scope of their employment, is imputed to the carrier which constituted them as agents for the performance of its contract with the passengers. The rule is founded upon public policy and convenience. Every person is bound to use due care in the conduct of his business, and if his business is committed to an agent or servant, the obligation is not changed. The principle is peculiarly applicable to the relation between common carrier and passengers, for a carrier is bound to protect as far as practicable its passengers from violence committed by co-passengers and strangers, and it also undertakes to protect them absolutely against misconduct or negligence of its own servants engaged in the execution of the contract. New Jersey Steamboat Co. v. Brockett, 121 U.S. 637, 7 S.Ct. 1039, 30 L.Ed. 1049; New York, P. & N. R. Co. v. Waldron, 116 Md. 441, 82 A. 709, 39 L.R.A.,N.S. 502. It is also well settled that after a person boards a train or street car where passengers are regularly received, and the relation of carrier and passenger is established by the payment and acceptance of the fare, he cannot be arbitrarily ejected when he is not guilty of any misconduct. Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co. v. Lockman, 49 Ind.App. 143, 96 N.E. 970.

On the other hand, a common carrier has the right to exclude from any of its cars a passenger who is offensive or annoying to other passengers, or whose condition or conduct is such as reasonably to warrant the anticipation of annoyance or disturbance. Hudson v. Lynn & B. R. Co., 178 Mass. 64, 59 N.E. 647. An objectionable person may be one who disturbs other passengers by unseemly or insulting language, or one who is unruly or boisterous and interferes with the carrier's business. Spalt v. Eaton, 118 N.J.L. 327, 192 A. 576; Sorenson v. Lincoln Traction Co., 94 Neb. 91, 142 N.W. 702. If a passenger's condition or conduct is liable to cause danger or serious annoyance to other passengers, it is not only the right but the duty of the carrier to eject him, even though he has paid his fare. Falzarano v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 119 N.J.L. 76, 194 A. 75; Casteel v. American Airways, 261 Ky. 818, 88 S.W.2d 976; Leonard v. St. Louis Transit Co., 115 Mo.App. 349, 91 S.W. 452. Moreover, when the misconduct of a passenger is such as to warrant his ejection, the conductor may call a police officer to eject him, and the officer may use necessary force to eject.

It is further held that where a conductor, due to some error of judgment, wrongfully ejects a passenger, the carrier will be liable for the tort committed, regardless of the conductor's motive, his good motive being available only to defeat a recovery of punitive damages. If a passenger is not in any way at fault, the carrier will also be liable if he is arrested upon the request of the conductor while engaged in the performance of his prescribed duties. In expelling a passenger from a car or in requesting that he be arrested, the...