Enlee v. Seaboard Air Line Ry.

• Decision Date: 28 June 1918
• Docket Number: 10007.
• Citation: 96 S.E. 490,110 S.C. 137
• Parties: ENLEE ET AL. v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

96 S.E. 490

110 S.C. 137

ENLEE ET AL. v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY.

No. 10007.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 28, 1918

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; George E Prince, Judge.

Action by Charley N. Enlee and Dasey Belle Enlee against the Seaboard Air Line Railway. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The charge was as follows:

Mr Foreman and Gentlemen of the Jury: The plaintiffs come into court, and complaining of the defendant by their complaint allege against the defendant that at the time mentioned in the complaint they sought to obtain transportation from the Seaboard Railway from Columbia, S. C., to Orangeburg, S.C. It is alleged that they asked the ticket agent of the defendant company for two tickets to Orangeburg. It is alleged he told them $2.50 was the fare-- in their complaint--for two tickets to Orangeburg. It is alleged that he paid the $2.50, and that the defendant company, through its agent, gave them one ticket with two subdivisions in the ticket which they took in good faith as evidence of their right to transportation entitling them to ride in accordance with the amount of money they paid, and that they boarded the defendant's passenger train; that when they got in 3 1/2 or 4 miles from Columbia they were informed by the conductor that it entitled one of them to ride; that the ticket furnished only gave the right to one passenger to ride. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that they then explained to the conductor that they were both entitled to ride, or to transportation for two, or that they had paid for two, but that the conductor claimed they only had evidence of the right of one to ride upon the train as a passenger, refusing to take them both on the ticket they had, and ejected them. It is alleged he gave them the option for one to go on, but refused to take them both on the ticket, and that they were ejected. They allege that this was willfully and wantonly done, not only negligence on the part of the ticket agent but willful and wanton on the part of the conductor.

Now, the defendant comes in and denies that he paid for two tickets, and denies that they acted willfully or wantonly; alleges that he only had the evidence of the right to transport one on that ticket, and that he had not paid the defendant company for two tickets, and that the company had no right to transport both of them on that ticket, or for the amount of money they paid; that therefore they had a legal right to eject them, and was not guilty of any wrong in ejecting them, since they offered to take one.

At the close of the testimony the defendant made a motion for the direction of a verdict as to one of these people, under the testimony. You heard me rule that, if the testimony showed that the husband purchased the ticket, whether he paid the price of one or two made no difference. The witness concurred that he selected that his wife should go on the ticket when the conductor took the position that only one could ride on the ticket, and it was his wife's own option when she left the train with her husband. Therefore I advised counsel on both sides I would direct you not to find a verdict for the wife, because she voluntarily got off when it was not necessary for her to get off.

The question is this: How much money was paid to the railroad? In this case I will leave for you to consider his rights in the case. Has the plaintiff satisfied you by the greater weight of the evidence--has he satisfied you that he paid for two tickets? If he did, and if the agent negligently failed to furnish him the ticket he paid for on the Seaboard, both for himself and wife, the right of transportation for two passengers, then the railroad was at fault. I charge you that, unless there was something to call the attention of a passenger to the fact that probably a mistake was made, he has the right to assume that the ticket they gave him was the proper evidence of his right to the transportation which he paid for. You are not bound to read your ticket. If you do read it, and see that the agent made a mistake, it is your duty to call attention to it; but you are not bound to read it. If you pay for a ticket, for illustration, to Charleston, paid the price, and the agent, through mistake, only furnished ticket to Orangeburg, it is the railroad's negligence that you haven't got the evidence of your right to transportation to Charleston, the point to which you had paid.

Mr. Foreman, the knowledge of the railroad through its ticket agent that transportation had been paid for is knowledge to the conductor, whether he actually knows it or not; in other words, the company is just as bound as it would be had the conductor known it; the company knew it.

Now, if the man had paid two fares, he was entitled to transportation. If he did--I don't mean to intimate he did in this case--that is up to him to prove he did by the greater weight or preponderance of the evidence. Has he satisfied you he bought two tickets, that he bought the right of transportation for two persons from Columbia to Orangeburg? Then, if he did, he was entitled to proper evidence of that fact, and if through negligence he was not furnished with proper evidence of that fact, the conductor, as far as that person is concerned, rightfully ejected him; but if the railroad wrongfully did it, the railroad would be liable to him for actual damages. But, Mr. Foreman, if you should find by the greater weight of the testimony that he notified the conductor before his ejectment that he made a statement to the conductor, and the conductor, without investigating the statement, ejected him, I charge you, Mr. Foreman, if he had paid two fares, that when the conductor would not listen to any reasonable explanation he made, the conductor took the risk for his company, the risk of the plaintiff being right; it was his business right then and there to have investigated the matter. Now, you cannot hold--the company cannot be held for punitive damages if it should turn out he was right, unless the plaintiff had paid two fares he has got no case. If he did he has got a case for actual damages, but if he told the conductor of the facts about it, and the company ejected him without investigation, then, the railroad would be liable, not only for actual damages, but punitive damages. That is the law, under the cases cited in this state, that where a railroad has a reasonable opportunity to investigate the statement of a passenger and fails to exercise it, it takes the risk of the passenger being right, and if it should turn out that the passenger was right, then the railroad would be liable for punitive damages. What are actual damages; what may be considered by you in determining the amount of actual damages? First, you may take into consideration: He has got no case unless he paid two fares. If he did pay two fares, and was only allowed one transportation for two fares, then the money he paid for the other fare that he was not permitted to get the benefit of, he would be entitled to recover the amount of that money with reasonable interest, 7 per cent., from the time he paid for that ticket until now. That is one item of actual damages. Another item of actual damages, you may say, what was it reasonably worth to walk over three miles in the rain, or whatever distance it was necessary for him to walk, may not be necessary for him to walk all the way to Columbia. That is a question for you, only entitled to reasonable compensation for having to walk. Of course, in considering that you may consider the condition of the weather. You may consider any lost time. Now, I was about to say any loss of earning. There is no testimony to show that he did lose any earning; therefore that cannot be considered. Now, those are the things than can be considered as actual damage. Now, if he told the conductor what he alleges in the complaint, that he had paid for two fares, for the right of transportation for two persons, and it was the ticket agent's mistake, if there was any mistake, that he didn't have the evidence of that fact that he had paid for two transportations, and not his fault, but the agent of the company's fault, and if the conductor failed to investigate, then the conductor took the risk of his being right, and if he was right, the defendant company is liable to him for punitive damages.

What may you consider for punitive damages? Punitive damages are never predicated on mere negligent act, any wrong the result of mere negligence, unless the negligence was so gross as to imply a reckless disregard of his right, a form of recklessness that if the company was reckless it was willful. And in considering that you will remember I charge you that the knowledge of the ticket seller is knowledge of the company, and it doesn't make a particle of difference whether the conductor knew it or not; the company knew it. If he had bought and paid for two, the right of transportation for two people, the company knew it, and knowledge of the company is knowledge of its agent, but the agent is not sued. But the question is whether the company knew it or not. The conductor's business is, as our Supreme Court has said when a...