Little Rock Railway & Electric Company v. Hampton

• Decision Date: 23 March 1914
• Citation: 165 S.W. 289,112 Ark. 194
• Parties: LITTLE ROCK RAILWAY & ELECTRIC COMPANY v. HAMPTON
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

165 S.W. 289

112 Ark. 194

LITTLE ROCK RAILWAY & ELECTRIC COMPANY v. HAMPTON

Supreme Court of Arkansas

March 23, 1914

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; Guy Fulk, Judge reversed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

Appellee who was a colored woman, entered one of appellant's cars at Sixth and Main streets in the city of Little Rock, and paid her fare as a passenger, and after riding about a dozen blocks she was told by the conductor that she would have to move and take a seat nearer the rear of the car. Appellee refused to change seats, but offered to leave the car, if her fare was refunded, but the conductor declined to return the fare because he had "rung it up" on the register of fares. The conductor continued to insist that appellee change her seat and she persisted in her refusal to do so, whereupon the conductor took appellee by the arm and attempted to remove her from her seat, and, as she resisted vigorously considerable force was required to eject her from the seat as a result of which appellee says she sustained serious personal injuries, as well as great humiliation. It is not contended that the conductor used excessive force in overcoming appellee's resistance, but it is insisted that the conductor had no right to use any force in requiring appellee to change her seat.

The controversy arose over the attempt of the conductor to enforce the regulation of the appellant company requiring white passengers to seat from the front of the car, and colored passengers to seat from the rear. It was contended upon the part of appellant that the car had become crowded and that a number of passengers, all of whom were white, were standing in the car, and that there were vacant seats between the one occupied by appellee and the rear of the car, and that the conductor was undertaking to require appellee to occupy the first vacant seat in the rear of the car. The evidence was conflicting as to the number of passengers and the scarcity of seats, and appellee insists there was no unoccupied seat to the rear of her, and that to have obeyed the conductor's order to vacate her seat would have required her to stand during the remainder of her journey. The evidence was conflicting, and we can not say what the facts were, but all parties recognized the right of the conductor to require white passengers to seat from the front of the car and colored passengers to seat from the rear, but appellee says the enforcement of this regulation did not necessitate a change of her seat because there were other and sufficient vacant seats for all white passengers. The court directed the jury to return a verdict for appellee, and gave instructions on the measure of damages, and a verdict was returned for appellee in the sum of $ 400, which we would not hold to be excessive had that verdict been returned under proper instructions. The instructions asked by appellant were to the effect that the conductor had the right to use such force as was reasonably necessary to enforce the statute in regard to the occupancy of seats in the car and that a passenger who refused to be so seated might be ejected from the car. The instructions given upon the part of appellee were to the effect that the conductor had the right to direct a passenger to change his seat, but that he would have no right to take hold of, or to abuse or assault a passenger, or to use any force in the enforcement of this regulation.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

Rose, Hemingway, Cantrell & Loughborough, for appellant.

1. It was error to direct a verdict for plaintiff.

Conductors have the right to use necessary force to eject a passenger from a coach or seat he is not entitled to occupy. No unnecessary force or insult or humiliation must be used. Kirby's Dig., §§ 5658-5663; 93 Ark. 244.

2. The third instruction for plaintiff is abstract and misleading. 14 Ark. 530; 69 Id. 130; 77 Id. 569; 85 Ark. 394.

W. H Pemberton and Mehaffy, Reid & Mehaffy, for appellee.

1. A conductor has no right to forcibly eject a passenger who refuses to comply with the law. This is a misdemeanor, subject to fine. Kirby's Dig., §§ 5658-5664, 93 Ark. 244, is not in point, as section 6629, Kirby's Dig., gives express authority to railroad conductors to eject. In the absence of a statute, street car conductors have no such power.

2. Where each party asks the court to direct a verdict, they agree to submit the question to the court. 159 S.W. 1113; 146 F. 1; 100 Ark. 71.

3. The conductor used more force than was necessary.

OPINION

SMITH, J., (after stating the facts).

The separate street car law (Kirby's Digest) reads as follows:

"Section 5658. All persons, companies or corporations operating any street car line in any city of the first class, in the State of Arkansas, are hereby required to operate separate cars, or to separate the white and colored passengers in the cars operated for both, and to set apart or designate in each car or coach so operated for both a portion thereof, or certain seats therein to be occupied by white passengers, and a portion thereof or certain seats therein to be occupied by colored passengers."

"Section 5659. No persons, companies or corporations so operating street cars shall make any difference or discrimination in the quality or convenience of the accommodations provided for the two races under the provisions of this act."

"Section 5660. The conductor or other person in charge of any car or coach so operated upon any street car line shall have the right at any time, when in his judgment it may be necessary or proper for the comfort or convenience of passengers so to do, to change the said designation so as to increase or decrease the amount of space or seats set apart for either race; or he may require any passenger to change his seat when or so often as the change in the passengers may make such change necessary."

"Section 5661. All passengers on any street car line shall be required to take the seat assigned to them, and any person refusing to do so shall leave the car, or, remaining upon the car, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be fined in any sum not to exceed twenty-five dollars."

"Section 5662. Any person, company or corporation failing to operate separate cars, or to set apart or designate portions of the cars operated for the separate accommodation of the white and...