Kuhn v. Chi., M. & St. P. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 09 March 1888
• Citation: 74 Iowa 137,37 N.W. 116
• Parties: KUHN v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. R. CO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

74 Iowa 137

37 N.W. 116

KUHN

v.CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 9, 1888.

Appeal from district court, Carroll county.

This is an action at law by Jacob Kuhn against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad Company, by which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages of the defendant upon the ground that a conductor on one of its trains, upon which plaintiff was a passenger, wrongfully, maliciously, and forcibly ejected the plaintiff from said train. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals.Wright, Baldwin & Haldane, for appellant.

Scott & Scott, for appellee.

ROTHROCK, J.

The plaintiff and one King were at Coon Rapids on the line of defendant's railroad on the 13th day of February, 1883. They desired to travel on the road to Manning, a station some distance west of Coon Rapids. They made application to the ticket agent at Coon Rapids for tickets to Manning. The agent sold them tickets to another station called Warwick, which is a short distance east of Manning, and stated to them that the tickets were good for passage to Manning. The fact that the tickets were good for passage to Manning is conceded by the defendant, and plaintiff claims that he told the conductor when he took up his ticket that he wanted to go to Manning. The train arrived at Warwick after dark. The plaintiff claims, and he and King testified on the trial, that, as the train approached Warwick, the conductor called the name of the station and commanded the plaintiff and King to leave the train; that they refused and tried to explain, and claimed that their tickets were good to Manning; but that the conductor, with loud and profane language, stated to them if they did not leave the train he would put them off, and advanced towards them in a threatening manner as if to execute his threat; whereupon they left the train. It is claimed that there was a deep snow and no traveled road between Warwick and Manning, and no house at Warwick where plaintiff could stay; that he was compelled to travel through the snow and water to Manning in a rain, by which exposure he caught a severe cold, and was sick for a week. The person who was conductor of the train was sworn as a witness, and in his testimony he stated that he knew the tickets were good for passage to Manning, and that he stated to the plaintiff that, as Warwick was but a flag station, he had better leave the train at Manning, but that plaintiff and his companion demanded their right to be allowed to leave the train at Warwick; and that he accordingly stopped at that station, where they got off, without objection or protest; and that he used no profane, loud, or boisterous language towards them whatever.

It will be seen from the foregoing statement that the evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that the plaintiff was wrongfully compelled to leave the train before the contract of carriage was completed, and that he was entitled to damages in some amount. The court instructed the jury, on the question of damages, as follows: “There is no evidence from which any assessment of actual damages can be made in this case beyond the value of the transportation from Warwick to Manning, which would be but a few cents, so that upon this point there is no room practically for the assessment of any actual damages beyond the value of the transportation between those two points. The most important question on this point is whether or not anything ought to be added by way of exemplary damages. If you conclude from the evidence that the...