Kansas City Southern Ry Co v. Van Zant
| Decision Date | 02 January 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 142,142 |
| Citation | 260 U.S. 459,67 L.Ed. 348,43 S.Ct. 176 |
| Parties | KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. VAN ZANT |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Samuel W. Moore, of New York City, and Cyrus Crane, of Kansas City, Mo., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 460-464 intentionally omitted] Mr. Charles H. Montgomery, of Joplin, Mo., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 464-466 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.
The case presents the effect of a condition in a free pass issued by petitioner to respondent and used by her in transportation in interstate commerce—whether determined by the provisions of section 1 of the Hepburn Act (34 Stat. 584 [Comp. St. § 8563]) or by the laws of Kansas and Missouri.
There is practically no dispute about the facts. The pass was authoritatively and gratuitously issued and she sustained injuries in Missouri while using it in an interstate journey. This injury she alleged and prayed judgment against the railway company in the sum of $25,000.
The railway company opposed the pass to the action. It contained the following condition:
'The person accepting and using it, thereby assumes all risk of accident and damage to person and baggage.'
The company averred that it was an interstate carrier by rail and issued the pass under article 5 of the federal law, known as the Interstate Commerce Act (24 Stat. 379), and it was to be 'interpreted and controlled in its effect and operation by decisions of the federal courts' construing the act.
To the defense respondent replied that at the time of receiving the pass she resided in Kansas, and that in accepting it 'she did not and could not assume the risk of accident or damage to her person and baggage, caused by the negligence' of the company, and that the condition upon the pass expressing such effect was void under the provisions of article 3, c. 98, of the General Statutes of the State of Kansas of 1915, relating to railroads and other carriers, and that under the statutes and the common law of Kansas the condition was against public policy.
She further pleaded that under the laws of Missouri the condition was also against public policy and void, and that the action was not, and is not, brought 'upon any federal statute or under any federal law, but upon the common-law liability in force in Missouri, and that the action was, and is, brought in the circuit court of Jasper county, Mo., under the laws of the state of Missouri,' and that the company's liability to her was to be determined by the laws of that state.
The trial court took that view of the determining law, took and expressed the view that the condition upon the pass was void under the laws and public policy of both states, and ruled that the condition upon it constituted no defense to the action and excluded it from the case. Declarations of law recognizing the relevancy and controlling effect of the condition were refused.
The court thereupon found for respondent (plaintiff) and fixed her damages at $8,000—that amount having been stipulated as representing her injury. Judgment was entered for that amount, and was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the state.
The Supreme Court discussed at some length the Hepburn Act, the extent of its regulation, and what it permitted to state powers or excluded from them, and said, adopting the language of the railroad commissioner of the state:
'Our conclusion is that Con...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Francis v. Southern Pac Co
...employee of the carrier. Charleston & W.C.R. Co. v. Thompson, 234 U.S. 576, 34 S.Ct. 964, 58 L.Ed. 1476. Kansas City So. R. Co. v. Van Zant, 260 U.S. 459, 43 S.Ct. 176, 67 L.Ed. 348, followed in 1923 and hl d that the liability of an interstate carrier to one riding on a 'free pass' was det......
-
Sassaman v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
...304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L. Ed. 1188, 114 A.L.R. 1487), were it not for the decision in Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Van Zant, 260 U.S. 459, 468, 43 S.Ct. 176, 177, 67 L.Ed. 348. There it was held that Congress, by the Hepburn Act,3 had legislated not only as to the persons to whom r......
-
Thompson v. National R. R. Passenger Corp.
...Francis v. Southern Pacific Co., 333 U.S. 445, 449-50, 68 S.Ct. 611, 613, 92 L.Ed. 798 (1948); Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Van Zant, 260 U.S. 459, 468, 43 S.Ct. 176, 177, 67 L.Ed. 348 (1923); Charleston & Western Carolina Co. v. Thompson, 234 U.S. 576, 578, 34 S.Ct. 964, 965, 58 L.Ed. 14......
-
Plant v. Thompson
... ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. F. E ... Williams , Judge ... ... than willful and wanton misconduct. Francis v. Southern ... Pac. Co., 68 S.Ct. 611; Kansas City Southern R. Co ... v. Van ... and wanton negligence. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v ... Van Zant, 260 U.S. 459, 43 S.Ct. 176, 67 L.Ed. 348; ... Francis et al. v ... ...