Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Smith

• Decision Date: 08 July 1912
• Citation: 59 So. 87,102 Miss. 276
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. v. MRS. MINERVA SMITH

59 So. 87

102 Miss. 276

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. v. MRS. MINERVA SMITH

Supreme Court of Mississippi

July 8, 1912

March 1912

APPEAL from the circuit court of Lincoln county, HON. D. M. MILLER Judge.

Suit by Minerva Smith against the Illinois Central Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Affirmed.

Mayes &amp Longstreet, for appellant.

We submit that while the roads should, of course, be liable for negligence, and should be penalized in punitive damages for wilful and wanton wrongs, the courts should be cautious in rendering decisions, the effects of which would be to deter the railroads from their commendable undertakings to meet the public demands, and which would have the effect of an embargo on rapid service and quick connection.

In this connection we quote from the opinion in the case of Y. &amp M. V. v. Hardie, 55 So. 971:

"The duty of the employees to a hundred other passengers on the train holding carriage contracts, is as sacred and obligatory as is the contract of the passengers whom the company has negligently carried by. Shall a railroad company be required to subordinate the public duty which it owes, the safety, the convenience, and the legal rights of a great number of passengers to the duty owing to one? These are questions involved in this case, but apparently overlooked by counsel. Every contract of carriage with a railroad company carries with it the obligation on the part of the company to carry the passengers to their place of destination; to afford reasonable opportunity to get on and off the train; to land passengers at a safe and proper place. Every passenger entering into such contract makes his contract in recognition of this right in every other passenger. For any violation of this contract on the part of the carrier actual damage may always be recovered. For any capricious, intentional, or wilful violation of the contract, punitive damages may be imposed; but we have not found one case that has ever held that punitive damages may be imposed under the facts of this case. Counsel cites authorities which they claim decide as they contended, but an examination of the authorities demonstrates the error of the contention. We must not forget the right of the many in pursuing the grievance of one.

"The employees of the carrier may be said to be the trustees of the rights of every passenger on the train. In considering the right of one all others are not to be forgotten. Each passenger has the right to reasonably expect that the train will be run on schedule time; each passenger may make his business arrangements predicated on that idea. The safe handling of the train may depend upon its schedule. Men of multiplied callings going from town to town, arrange their journeys on the schedule; they make their business engagements with reference to the schedules; arangements as to mails are based on train schedules; plans for the reception of perishable freight; arrangements for the last sad rites of funerals, anxious passengers hurrying to sick relatives--all these may depend upon the maintenance of the schedule. Shall these considerations of public importance all be brushed aside at the instance of one passenger whom the carrier had negligently carried by his proper destination? If this court should hold with the contention of counsel for appellee, and say that punitive damages may be inflicted in this case, it gives its assent to a legal conclusion which seems to us illogical and unjust. In such cases, the infliction of punitive damages would impede and not promote the public good. It would lead to the endangerment and not the safe guarding of the traveling public."

Cassedy & Butler, for appellees.

In the discussion of the case now before the court, being relieved of any minor complaints whatsoever, and required to defend the judgment recovered in the court below, on the whole record, the determination of this appeal will necessitate an understanding of all the facts upon which the judgment was rendered.

The counsel for the appellant neglect to take into consideration in presenting their views of the evidence to this court, that in as much as the jury had...