Lilly v. St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 12 March 1912 |
| Citation | 122 P. 502,31 Okla. 521,1912 OK 196 |
| Parties | LILLY v. ST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Plaintiff a passenger upon one of defendant's trains, had purchased a ticket from defendant's agent at one of its stations to another station upon defendant's road; but, in order for her to reach her destination, it was necessary that she change at an intervening station to another train upon another of defendant's lines of railway. She was without knowledge as to her route or where she would be required to change. Before reaching the destination at which she was required to change, she made repeated efforts to ascertain from defendant's servants and employés in charge of the train information regarding her route and as to where she would have to change; but they disregarded her and failed and refused to instruct her as to where she would have to make the change, on account of which she was carried beyond the junction point off her route and to a town where she was required to take passage upon another railway than defendant's, in order to reach her destination, and expended an additional sum for fare and caused her to suffer a loss of time and certain inconveniences. Held that a petition, stating in substance the foregoing facts stated a cause of action against defendant railway company and a general demurrer thereto should not have been sustained.
Where defendant's employés willfully neglected and refused to give plaintiff the information requested as stated above, plaintiff may in such case recover exemplary damages.
Error from District Court, Carter County; S. H. Russell, Judge.
Action by Lena Lilly against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed and remanded.
McNeal & Allen, for plaintiff in error.
W. F. Evans, R. A. Kleinschmidt, and J. H. Grant, for defendant in error.
This suit was brought by plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, to recover damages of defendant in error, defendant below, alleged to have been sustained by her as a passenger on defendant's road by being carried by a station where she had to change cars in order to reach her destination. The judgment of the trial court was against plaintiff upon a general demurrer to her petition. After alleging in her petition that on the 27th day of July, 1908, she purchased from the agent of defendant at Mansfield. Mo., a ticket from that point to Ardmore, Okl., to which latter point she desired to be transported for the purpose of being at the bedside of her mother, who was seriously ill and was not expected to live, she alleges as follows: "Plaintiff further states that she boarded defendant's train at Mansfield, Mo., on July 27, 1908, and was carried to Springfield, Mo., where, under the guidance of defendant's servants, she alighted from said train and took passage upon another of defendant's trains; that she was unacquainted with the route over which she was to travel; that she was relying wholly upon the employés of defendant to direct her how to travel in accordance with her ticket; that while the train upon which she was passenger was approaching Sapulpa, Okl., she made repeated efforts to ascertain from defendant's servants information regarding the route and as to change of cars, if any, but that said servants disregarded her efforts and ever failed and refused to instruct her as to the proper course; that upon arrival at Sapulpa said servants immediately left the trains without instructing her as to any change to be made, and she had no further opportunity of inquiry, and relying upon her said ticket, she stayed aboard said train, believing that it would take her to her destination, while, in fact, because of gross, willful, and wanton negligence of said defendant and its servants in not directing her how to travel, and in not informing her that she would have to change trains, when requested as aforesaid, unknowingly and without fault on her part, remained aboard a train of defendant's other than the one which would deliver her to her destination; and that she was carried to another destination other than the one to which her ticket entitled her to passage, in a manner and under the circumstances hereinafter set forth."
She further alleges that after the train departed from Sapulpa the conductor or auditor in charge of said train, whose duty it was to take notice of the provisions of her ticket, negligently, willfully, and wantonly failed and refused to notify her that she was aboard the wrong train; that she was carried to Oklahoma City, the terminus of defendant's line of road, and there discharged about 1 o'clock p. m. on July 28th; that because of her inability to continue her journey on the line of defendant company, she was compelled to remain at Oklahoma City until 1:30 a. m. July 29th, and then continue her journey to her destination over the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railway, which was the quickest and best route available to her; that on account of the lack of money, she was compelled while delayed in Oklahoma City to accept the hospitality of strangers and greatly humiliated thereby; that she was greatly worried because of the delay, and because of the fact that she was being kept away from her mother's bedside; that she suffered mental pain and anguish and physical exhaustion; that she was unprepared to hear of her mother's death on her arrival; that a physician's services were required; that because of aforesaid willful and wanton negligence of defendant, she was required to pay the sum of $2 additional railway fare, in order to reach her destination; and she prays judgment for the sum of $2 as compensatory damages and for the sum of $1,997 as punitive damages.
Defendant's demurrer is directed first against plaintiff's entire petition, upon the ground that it fails to state a cause of action against defendant; and, secondly, is directed especially against that portion of the petition whereby plaintiff seeks to recover punitive damages. Counsel for defendant, in an able and exhaustive brief, insist that the petition is defective in stating a cause of action, because it is not alleged that the train on which she rode was not stopped at Sapulpa sufficient length of time to enable her to change, and it is not alleged that sufficient notice of the arrival of the train at Sapulpa was not given by the servants of defendant to enable her to make the necessary change; and we presume that the trial court regarded the absence of these allegations a fatal defect in the cause of action attempted to be alleged by plaintiff.
It is well-settled law that a railway company is not required to give a passenger special notice of the arrival of a train at the passenger's...
To continue reading
Request your trial