Hutchison v. Southern Ry. Co
| Decision Date | 28 November 1905 |
| Citation | 52 S.E. 263,140 N.C. 123 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | HUTCHISON. v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. |
1. Railroads—Operation—Train Service— Regulations—Reasonableness.
A regulation established by a railway company, providing that certain trains shall not stop at all stations, is reasonable, provided there are enough trains to serve the purposes of local travel.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 9, Cent. Dig. Carriers, § 1068; vol. 41, Cent. Dig. Railroads, § 715.]
2. Carriers — Passengers — Contract of Transportation — Discharging Passenger at Destination.
Where a person having a ticket calling for a regular station as her destination was permitted without objection to take a train which did not stop at that station, and she did not know that the train did not stop there, and there was nothing on the face of the ticket to show that it was not good on that train, it was the duty of the company to stop the train at that station to permit her to alight.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 9, Cent. Dig. Carriers, § 1068.]
3. Same — Carrying Beyond Destination — Punitive Damages.
A passenger, recklessly and willfully carried, against her protest, beyond her destination, may recover punitive damages, under Code, § 1963, providing that passengers shall be put off at the destination to which they have paid, and that carriers shall be liable to the party aggrieved for any neglect or refusal in the premises.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 9, Cent. Dig. Carriers, § 1083.]
Appeal from Superior Court, Catawba County; Councill, Judge.
Action by Mattie Hutchison against the Southern Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
S. J. Ervin, for appellant.
Self & Whitener and Hufham & Williams, for appellee.
The feme plaintiff, a widow, bought a ticket from Hickory, N. C., to Liberty, S. C. The agent at Hickory told her she would make connection with the 1 p. m. train at Charlotte. Oh arriving at Charlotte, where she had to change cars, her train missed connection, and she took the next train, which left there at 10:20 p. m. This was a train which did not stop at all stations, Liberty being one of those at which, by the defendant's printed schedule, it did not stop; but the plaintiff testified that she was not aware of that fact, and no one so informed her. On the contrary, the conductor on the train, before getting to Charlotte told her she would miss connection, but that this 10:20 p. m. train from Charlotte would take her to Liberty that night; that in the 18 months previous she had twice traveled on that same 10:20 train, and each time had been put off at Liberty; that soon after leaving Charlotte the conductor, on taking up her ticket, exclaimed in a loud, imperative, and commanding tone: He kept repeating this, rebuking her, and she was deeply humiliated. She says she asked him to give her back her ticket and put her off at the first station (Gastonia); that, if he had done this, she would have spent the night there, and have gone on in the daytime next morning to Liberty, but, instead of this, he kept the ticket and later came back again, rebuking her in a loud voice, heard distinctly all over the coach, telling her she had no business in there, and saying, "I want to know who told you to get on, " adding that she knew the train did not stop at Liberty; that he spoke in a very ill-natured tone and loud voice; that she tried to reason with him, and again asked him to put her off at the first stop; that he came back the third time with the same loud, boisterous charges; that when she did not reply, being very nervous and humiliated, he "looked at her very furiously and said, 'What if he didn't put me off there?' " To this she says she replied finally that she had paid her fare and did not deserve such indignities, and that he would hear from her; that at Gastonia he did not return her ticket, as requested, so she could stop; that he did not stop at Liberty, where her people were on the platform as she passed, having telegraphed her daughter from Charlotte that, having missed connection, she would be on that train, but she was carried past to Seneca, about 25 miles further on, where she was put out at 2:30 at night, and had to sit on the platform alone till 4:30, when she took the train back, reaching Liberty before daylight in a shat-tercel, nervous condition, and walked in the dark up to her son-in-law's house alone, a half mile away, and was so exhausted by the nervous strain and exposure to the night air that she was ill, called in a physician, and was confined to her bed several days. The conductor, in his testimony, denied any discourtesy or rudeness, but says that he was polite and carried her on to Seneca because he suggested to her that she would get to Liberty 6 hours earlier by taking the north-bound train back than if she stopped at a station this side and waited for a south-bound train to Liberty, and that she consented to this.
In this conflict of evidence the jury found upon the issues submitted to them: The latter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. Cary Lumber Co
...has been again and too recently held by a unanimous court, with citation of authorities, to be so soon questioned. Hutchinson v. R. R., 140 N. C. 127, 52 S. E. 263. In 1 Cook, Stockholders, § 150, p. 69, it is said that, while there are some cases to the contrary the better rule is that, if......
- Stewart v. Cary Lumber Co.
- Clark v. Bland
-
Newton v. Standard Fire Ins. Co.
...or other public utility. See: Carmichael v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 157 N.C. 21, 72 S.E. 619; Hutchison v. Southern R.R., 140 N.C. 123, 52 S.E. 263.' King v. Insurance Co., supra, 273 N.C. at 398, 159 S.E.2d at 893. Suffice it to say that we are not called upon here to adop......