Denny v. Chi., R. I. & P. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 15 March 1911
• Citation: 150 Iowa 460,130 N.W. 363
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Parties: DENNY v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO.

150 Iowa 460

130 N.W. 363

DENNY

v.CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 15, 1911.

Appeal from District Court, Johnson County; R. P. Howell, Judge.

Action at law to recover damages for personal injury suffered by plaintiff's minor daughter. There was a directed judgment and verdict for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Wade, Dutcher & Davis, for appellant.

Carroll Wright, J. L. Parrish, and H. G. Walker, for appellee.

WEAVER, J.

At the time of the injury in question, Ruth Denny was a girl about 15 years of age. In August of 1907 she was living at Cedar Rapids in this state, but was contemplating a visit to St. Louis, Mo. She was acquainted with one E. W. Penny, who was then an employé of the defendant railway company. On learning of Miss Denny's proposed trip, he undertook to assist her by procuring a pass for her over defendant's line as far as Peoria, Ill., and return. This he accomplished by representing to the company that the person who was to use the transportation was his sister. The pass was made out to “Ruth Penny,” instead of the girl's true name, Ruth Denny, and she was therein described as the sister of the employé. This pass was honored by defendant on the outgoing trip from Cedar Rapids to Peoria. Returning from St. Louis, the girl boarded defendant's train at Peoria for the completion of her journey home. She purchased no ticket, but relied upon the return coupon of said pass as the voucher or authority for such transportation. At Rock Island, through the mistake or negligence of an employé of the company in misplacing a switch, a freight train moving through the yards was brought into collision with the passenger train on which the young lady was riding, and in the crash thus occasioned she was severely injured. It is for the injuries so sustained the father seeks a recovery of damages in this action.

At the close of the testimony on part of the plaintiff, defendant moved for a directed verdict in its favor on grounds which may be stated as follows: (1) It is admitted that plaintiff's daughter was a trespasser who had obtained access to the train by fraud and deceit, and the relation of passenger and carrier did not arise between the parties. (2) That there is no evidence to show negligence or failure of duty on the part of the company with respect to the said Ruth Denny. Still other grounds are assigned; but we shall have no occasion to consider them. The motion was sustained, and from the judgment for the defendant upon the directed verdict this appeal has been prosecuted.

If we correctly interpret the position taken by appellant's counsel, they do not question the general rule that one who by fraud and false representations gains access to a railway car for the purpose of obtaining carriage or transportation without paying therefor is, in the legal acceptance of the term, a trespasser, and as such is not entitled to the same protection which a passenger may demand at the hands of a carrier. It is said, however, that one who, being supplied with a void or insufficient ticket, takes passage upon a car believing in good faith that he is entitled to ride, is at most a merely technical trespasser, and is entitled to a reasonable degree of care and protection by the carrier, and that in no event can such carrier knowingly, wantonly, or recklessly kill or injure one who is riding upon its train, and then be heard to excuse such wrong by saying that the injured person was a trespasser. Numerous cases are called to our attention and discussed by counsel on both sides. The subject is an interesting one, and cases can easily be imagined where an extreme application of the rule of liability on one hand or nonliability on the other would produce grossly unjust results. But, assuming for our present purposes the entire correctness of the main propositions of law advanced in support of the appeal, we think it very clear that the record fails to make a case against the defendant. Counsel say that Miss Denny ...