Harlan v. Wabash Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 April 1906
• Citation: 94 S.W. 737,117 Mo. App. 537
• Parties: HARLAN v. WABASH RY. CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

94 S.W. 737

117 Mo. App. 537

HARLAN v. WABASH RY. CO.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 2, 1906.

1. CARRIERS — TAKING PASSENGERS BEYOND STATION—DAMAGES.

A verdict for $5 actual damages for carrying a passenger 20 miles beyond his station, requiring him to wait two or three hours at night till he could be carried back, is not excessive.

2. SAME—WILLFUL WRONG—EVIDENCE — EMPLARY DAMAGES.

Evidence in an action for carrying a passenger beyond his station held to authorize a finding that it was done willfully, intentionally, and without lawful excuse, so as to justify the granting of exemplary damages.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County; A. H. Waller, Judge.

Action by L. S. Harlan against the Wabash Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Geo. S. Grover, for appellant. Aubrey R. Hammett, for respondent.

ELLISON, J.

Plaintiff's action is based on defendant's refusal to stop its train at his destination and carrying him to the next station beyond. He obtained a verdict for $5 actual and $75 exemplary damages.

There was evidence in plaintiff's behalf tending to show that he was a passenger on one of defendant's passenger trains; that he boarded the train at St. Louis at about 10 o'clock p. m., and that his destination was Clifton Hill, near where he lived; that he was due to arrive at that place in the early morning, a short time before daylight. The train failed to stop there, and he was carried by to the next station. He got off at the latter place at a point about 100 yards from the station house, and in going up to the station in the dark he lost his hat. He borrowed a lantern and went back in search and found it. He was detained at this station for two or three hours when he was carried back to his destination, free of charge, on one of defendant's freight trains. In the circumstances, which the evidence shows in detail, we conclude that the verdict for $5 actual damages was not excessive.

2. The evidence shows that plaintiff was traveling on what is known as a stock or shipper's pass, and it is admitted by defendant that under his contract he was entitled to have the train stop at Clifton Hill for him to alight. There is evidence tending to show that there was a collector and a conductor on the train in question. That when the collector passed through the car shortly after leaving St. Louis, he said to plaintiff that he must get off at Moberly, a station about 20 miles east of Clifton Hill, and that plaintiff made no answer. Again, just before reaching Moberly, the collector again told him to get off at Moberly, and again he made no answer. Moberly is a division point, where the train stopped and changed engines, and where another train doing local business, and which stopped regularly at Clifton Hill, left about two hours after the train in controversy. After leaving Moberly, plaintiff handed the collector his pass when the latter demanded to know why he had not gotten off at Moberly as directed. Plaintiff replied that he had no business there, that that place was not his destination. The collector then told him that the train would not stop for him at Clifton Hill. Plaintiff insisted that it must, and reminded him of other occasions when an attempt was made to force him off at Moberly, and yet the conductor had stopped for him. The collector persisted that it would not be done this time. He then offered to give back to plaintiff his pass which the latter refused to take. He then threw it down angrily, and went away. The conductor then came in and asked him why he had not gotten off at Moberly—that...