Georgia Ry. & Electric Co. v. Baker
| Decision Date | 18 May 1906 |
| Citation | 54 S.E. 639,125 Ga. 562 |
| Parties | GEORGIA RY. & ELECTRIC CO. v. BAKER. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Although a street railway company may not be required by law to carry a passenger on any other line than the one over which the car originally boarded runs, still, if such company holds out that it will, when fare is paid on the first car, issue a transfer giving the right to ride on other cars of its lines a request for a transfer is an acceptance of this offer, and the delivery of the transfer completes a contract under which the passenger is entitled to demand the right to ride on both the original car and the transfer car; and the amount paid to the conductor of the first car is the consideration for the right to ride on each car. The right to ride on the car to which the passenger is transferred is in no sense a gratuity.
If a mistake is made by the conductor of the first car in issuing a transfer, and the passenger presents the transfer to the conductor of the second car and gives a reasonable explanation of the mistake of the conductor of the first car the conductor of the second car must at his peril determine whether the passenger is entitled to ride upon the transfer notwithstanding it does not upon its face show such right.
A condition on a transfer issued by a street railway company that "the holder, by accepting, agrees that, should any controversy arise as to its validity, holder will pay fare and call at company's office for correction," is unreasonable and void.
A threat by the conductor of the second car to expel a passenger on account of a mistake in the transfer slip is a legal wrong, giving the passenger a right of action against the company, notwithstanding there is nothing insulting in the words or manner of the conductor, further than a mere threat to expel might be deemed an insult.
In an action brought to recover damages for a threat to expel a passenger from a street car, who presented a transfer to the conductor which was defective through no fault of the plaintiff, but who, under the facts of the case, was entitled to a ride on the car, the measure of damage is not limited to the amount paid to prevent an expulsion, but general damages may be recovered as for an inexcusable trespass, even though there be no aggravating circumstances connected with the threat of expulsion.
While the evidence demanded a finding in favor of the plaintiff so far as the right to recover was concerned, the erroneous instruction in relation to the worldly circumstances of the parties was of such a character as to require the granting of a new trial.
Error from City Court of Atlanta; A. E. Calhoun, Judge.
Action by C. L. Baker, by her next friend, against the Georgia Railway & Electric Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed.
Rosser & Brandon and Walter T. Colquilt, for plaintiff in error.
O. E. & M. C. Horton, for defendant in error.
COBB P.J. (after stating the foregoing facts).
It is conceded that there is no law of this state, and no valid ordinance of the city of Atlanta, requiring street railway companies to issue transfers to passengers, authorizing them to ride upon a car other than the one which they originally board. This fact being conceded, the argument is made that the right to ride upon the second car, resulting from the issuance of the transfer, is a mere gratuity. This is not true. The issuance of transfers is a voluntary act on the part of the company, using the word "voluntary" in its ordinary sense. The company is not bound to issue transfers. It is under no obligation to transfer the passenger to any other point than one on the line of the car originally boarded. But when the company voluntarily and without any compulsion adopts the custom of issuing transfers for the consideration paid the conductor of the first car, it binds itself by a contract to transport the passenger from the point where he enters the car to a point on any line to which, under the custom of the company, it is usual to issue transfers. In the absence of a custom, the company simply sells to the passenger, for the fare paid, the right to ride between points on the first line. Under a custom of issuing transfers, the offer is made for a stated consideration to transfer the passenger from a point on one line to a point on any other line embraced within the custom. When the passenger pays his fare to the conductor of the first car and requests a transfer, and a transfer is delivered, the offer arising under the custom is accepted, and the contract becomes complete, and the one fare is the consideration for the transportation of the entire journey. The company does not contract merely for the journey on the first line and donate a journey on the second line. Some companies will issue tickets entitling passengers to six rides for 25 cents, when the usual fare paid is 5 cents for each ride. No one would seriously contend that only the first five rides, under such circumtances, were paid for, and the sixth was a mere donation. The company is in the business of selling rides. It may fix the amount which shall be paid for a ride upon either one or more cars. When this amount is paid, the passenger is a purchaser of a ride between the points covered by the contract. This is true, whether, as an original proposition, the passenger could demand a right to ride between these points for the amount paid or not. The position that the transferred passenger is receiving a mere gratuity when he rides upon the second car is untenable.
2. Whether the transfer slip used by a street railway company is to be looked to as conclusive evidence of a right to ride on the second car, and whether any mistake made in the issuance of the transfer, resulting in its showing upon its face that the right to ride upon the second car does not exist, is a question about which the courts are not agreed. According to some of the decisions, the transfer received must be considered as conclusive evidence of the passenger's right to ride, although it may not in its true sense express or evidence the contract into which the passenger enters. These decisions hold that, if the transfer is inaccurate, the explusion of the holder upon refusal to pay additional fare is justified, although the mistake or defect is due to the negligence of the conductor who issued the transfer. On the other hand, there are numerous cases which deny the transfer such conclusive force and dignity. These cases rule that the passenger has a right to rely upon the acts and statement of the conductor issuing the transfer, and if he is expelled from the second car on account of a mistake or defect in the transfer, notwithstanding he has acted in good faith and offered a reasonable explanation, the carrier is liable in damages for such explusion. See the cases cited in Hornesby v. Ga. Ry. & Elec. Co., 120 Ga. 913, 48 S.E. 339, and in the note to that case in 1 Am. & Eng Annotated Cases, 392. In the...
To continue reading
Request your trial