Harris v. Queen City Coach Co.

• Decision Date: 24 September 1941
• Docket Number: 105.
• Citation: 16 S.E.2d 464,220 N.C. 67
• Parties: HARRIS v. QUEEN CITY COACH CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

16 S.E.2d 464

220 N.C. 67

HARRIS v. QUEEN CITY COACH CO.

No. 105.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

September 24, 1941

This action is stated in plaintiff appellee's brief to be "to recover compensatory and exemplary damages from the defendant by reason of the defendant's wilful and deliberate failure and refusal to transport him on its bus from Rutherfordton to Asheville in an empty seat defendant had in the rear of the said bus at the time."

There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff, a colored preacher, purchased at the defendant's bus station in Rutherfordton a ticket to Asheville; that when the bus arrived at Rutherfordton there was at least one vacant seat in the rear thereof; that when the plaintiff entered the bus the driver started to seat him on the vacant seat in the rear but when one of the passengers, a white man sitting in the rear of the bus, shook his head at the driver, the driver told the plaintiff he could ride in the front of the bus in a space near the entrance thereto, and that when the plaintiff stated it would be dangerous to ride there the driver told him to get off the bus; that the plaintiff did get off the bus and it was driven off without him; that the plaintiff surrendered his ticket to the ticket agent from whom he had purchased it and was refunded the amount he had paid therefor; that the plaintiff was caused to miss an appointment to preach in Asheville, that he was exposed to the weather, and that he was damaged and humiliated by being refused transportation on the bus operated by the defendant as a common carrier.

The jury in response to issues submitted to them found that the defendant wrongfully refused to transport the plaintiff, and assessed his compensatory damages at $200, and further found that the defendant wilfully and maliciously refused to transport the plaintiff, and assessed his exemplary or punitive damages at $600.

From judgment predicated on the verdict the defendant appealed assigning errors.

Williams & Cocke, of Asheville, for appellant.

Sanford W. Brown, of Asheville, for appellee.

SCHENCK Justice.

The defendant, appellant, assigns as error the following excerpt from his Honor's charge: "If you answer that issue (the third issue relating to alleged wilfulness and maliciousness of the refusal of the defendant to transport the plaintiff) yes, that is if you find that the wrong done this boy was done in rudeness, with malice, with disregard to the rights of others, then answer that issue yes, or if you find that he was declined that seat because he was a negro answer that issue yes. If you fail to so find answer it no.

"Then if you say yes to the issue, it is a question in your sound discretion as to what amount you will fix as punitive damages in this case, not to exceed $1,000.00." We are constrained to sustain this assignment of error.

This charge was tantamount to an instruction that the finding by the jury that the refusal of transportation was wilful and malicious ipso facto entitled the plaintiff to recover exemplary or punitive damage, the amount of which was in the sound discretion of the jury. W...