Hutchison v. Southern Ry. Co.

Citation95 S.E. 181,109 S.C. 90
Decision Date07 December 1917
Docket Number9833.
PartiesHUTCHISON v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. (TWO CASES).
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of York County; T. J Mauldin, Judge.

Actions by Mrs. Kate J. Hutchison and Miss Kate J. Hutchison against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Gary C.J., and Fraser, J., dissenting.

J Harry Foster, of Rock Hill, for appellants.

McDonald & McDonald, of Winnsboro, for respondent.

HYDRICK J.

These actions were brought to recover damages alleged to have been caused by incorrect information given to plaintiffs by defendant's agent at Rock Hill, S. C., with regard to their right to through transportation, without change of cars, from Rock Hill to Auburn, Ala.

Plaintiffs allege that on October 21, 1915, they purchased from defendant's agent at Rock Hill through tickets from Rock Hill to Auburn, Ala.; that the agent told them to go to Charlotte and take train No. 37, which is known as the New York, Atlanta & New Orleans, Limited, and they would be carried through to Auburn, without another change of cars that they followed his directions, and, when the train was approaching Atlanta, the conductor asked them to go forward and take seats in another car, as the one they were in would be dropped at Atlanta, thereby further misleading them into the belief that they would be carried on to Auburn in the forward car, as he knew their tickets were for Auburn; that, after the train left Atlanta, another conductor came through to take up tickets, and, when he saw their tickets, told them the train was not scheduled to stop at Auburn, and that he would not stop there; that he was obdurate, rude in manner and speech, and would give them no opportunity to explain their situation to him, and they were compelled by the circumstances to get off at Opelika, Ala., a station seven miles this side of Auburn, at which the train was scheduled to stop, and drive through the country in an automobile to Auburn; that the train arrived at Opelika about 10 o'clock at night; it was raining and the weather was very inclement, and their experience was most unpleasant and disagreeable, on account of the inclemency of the weather and the drive through the country at night without an escort.

Defendant denied misdirection of plaintiffs by its agents, and alleged that they had been informed that No. 37 was not scheduled to stop at Auburn, and, in view of that information, they intended to get off at Opelika, and had made arrangements for a relative to meet them there and take them to Auburn. Defendant also claimed immunity from liability under the terms of the contract of carriage, alleging that the tariff under which the tickets were sold was a through route and joint rate tariff that had been established over the lines of defendant and other carriers, and that by the terms of the contract, which was printed on the tickets, plaintiffs agreed that, in selling the tickets over other lines, defendant acted only as agent for such lines, and agreed that its own responsibility should end with its own line, and that its line ended at Atlanta; and, further, that the tariff under which the tickets were sold had been duly filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission and published, and that it showed that the train was not scheduled to stop at Auburn.

The cases were heard together on circuit and in this court. After hearing all the evidence, the circuit court directed verdicts for defendant, and from judgments thereon, plaintiffs appealed.

Considered in its most favorable light for plaintiffs, as it must be on an issue as to the right of the court to direct verdicts for defendant, there was evidence tending to prove that defendant's Rock Hill agent told plaintiffs that they could go through to Auburn on 37 without changing cars after leaving Charlotte, although that was denied by the agent.

But the inference which plaintiffs would have drawn from the fact that defendant's conductor asked them to take seats in another car, because the car they were in would be taken off the train at Atlanta, is not warranted by the fact alone. While it may, in a way have been misleading to plaintiffs, since they construed it as confirming what the agent at Rock Hill had told them, nevertheless the conductor was not responsible for that result, because, while he knew that their tickets were for Auburn, he was ignorant of the information that had been given them by defendant's agent at Rock Hill; and he may have assumed, as he had the right to do, that they had made proper inquiry and had been given correct information as to the stopping of the train at Auburn; and, in the absence of special inquiry of him, he had the right to assume that they knew how to get to their destination. No doubt, he assumed that they knew they would have to get off at some station south of Atlanta at which the train was scheduled to stop, and take a local train for Auburn, of which there were a sufficient number for the accommodation of local traffic, or go there by private conveyance. Therefore, under the circumstances, he was guilty of no dereliction of duty in failing to volunteer information which he had the right to assume that plaintiffs had.

In passing, we may also put out of the case the charge of rudeness of conduct and speech on the part of the conductor who took charge of the train at Atlanta. The testimony, considered in its most favorable light for plaintiffs, fails to prove any actionable conduct or speech. Mrs. Hutchison testified to nothing more than that the conductor was "rough" and "gruff" in conduct and speech to her, and that he would not give her an opportunity to talk to him, but said positively that he would not stop at Auburn.

It is not the plaintiff's opinion or characterization of the language or conduct of another that makes it actionable whether it is so or not is determined by the law; by the court interpreting the law where there is but one inference; or by the jury when...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • State v. Hewitt
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 19, 1918
    ... ... H. Hall on February 25, 1917, and ... of transporting liquor for delivery on February 4, 1917, he ... being the agent of the Southern Express Company at ... Montmorenci, in violation of the act of Legislature of ... February 20, 1915 (29 St. at Large, p. 140) ... [95 S.E. 349.] ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT