Logan v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 30 April 1883
• Parties: LOGAN v. THE HANNIBAL & ST. JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

77 Mo. 663

LOGAN

v.THE HANNIBAL & ST. JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1883.

Appeal from Livingston Circuit Court--HON. E. J. BROADDUS, Judge.

REVERSED.

Geo. W. Easley for appellant.

L. H. Waters for respondent.

HENRY, J.

By this action plaintiff seeks to recover damages for his ejection from a train of defendant's cars, at Chillicothe, he having purchased a ticket from Laclede, east of Chillicothe, to Kansas City and return. The ticket was purchased on the 8th day of August, 1876, and it was on his return that he was removed from the train. The facts, as disclosed by the record, are, that after the train left Kansas City, at the North Missouri Junction, the conductor informed plaintiff that he had taken the wrong train, that he should have taken the morning train, that his train did not stop at Laclede, and he could not let him off there, but would let him off at Chillicothe west, or Brookfield east of Laclede, from which latter station he could return that night on another train; that plaintiff insisted on his right to be carried to and let off at Laclede. When the train reached Chillicothe, plaintiff, still insisting upon his right to be carried to and let off at Laclede, and refusing to get off at Chillicothe, or to pay fare to Brookfield, was ejected from the train.

There was testimony tending to prove that the conductor was insolent to plaintiff, and that more than necessary force was used to put him off. It was also shown that the defendant's road and the Chicago, Burlington & Southwestern Railroad formed a junction at Laclede. The defendant offered evidence, which the court excluded, to show what the rule of the company was at that time with regard to round trip tickets, and that under the rule, train No. 4, on which plaintiff took passage, was not permitted to stop at Laclede, and that when plaintiff purchased his ticket, the agent informed him that he must not get on that train to return, because it did not stop at Laclede. The defendant also offered the defendant's time table, showing that train No. 4 was not permitted to stop at Laclede at the time plaintiff purchased his ticket, which was also excluded. The trial resulted in a judgment for plaintiff for $1,200, from which this appeal is prosecuted.

1. RAILROADS: damages for the ejection of passengers: pleading

Apart from the ejection of plaintiff from the train, the other behavior of the conductor, of which he complains, constituted no cause of action against the defendant. It could only be considered in aggravation of damages in connection with an unlawful removal of plaintiff from the train. If his ejection was lawful, then, even if more force and violence than necessary were used, plaintiff cannot recover in this action, because it is based upon an alleged unlawful removal of plaintiff from the cars. Johnson v. R. R. Co., 46 N. H. 213. If his removal was justifiable, and he would recover damages for the improper manner in which it was effected, such should be the cause of action alleged in his petition.

2. ______: junction with another road: statutes: passengers.

The case, therefore, turns upon the question of the conductor's right, and duty to the company, to put plaintiff off at Chillicothe. It is contended that inasmuch as defendant's road and the Chicago, Burlington & Southwestern Railroad formed a junction at Laclede, it was the duty of defendant, under section 29, General Statutes, 340, to stop all its passenger trains at Laclede to enable passengers to get on and off That section has no application to passengers, other than those who desire to transfer from a train on one of the roads to a train on the other. That is the language of the section, and it can be invoked against the company in behalf of no one except a passenger who wishes to make such a transfer. A passenger whose destination is Laclede may take the chance of such a stoppage, if there are others on the train who desire to transfer but the company owes him no duty to stop there for his accommodation.

3. ______: passengers: tickets.

With respect to plaintiff's right to have the train stop at Laclede to let him off, Thompson in his work on Carriers of Passengers, page 65, says: “A ticket cannot be said to be either the contract or to contain the contract. The settled opinion is, that it is a mere receipt, taken, or voucher adopted for convenience to show that the passenger has paid his fare from one place to another. A contract for transportation may therefore be proved independently of the terms of the ticket.” At page 66, he says: “It is the duty of the passenger to ascertain what train will stop at his destination. Therefore a passenger who purchased a ticket to a station at which local trains stopped, but through trains did not, was not entitled to enter the first train due after he purchased his ticket, and demand of the conductor that it stop at his station, when by the regulations of the company, it was not permitted to do so, as it was a through train.” That “railroad companies may make reasonable regulations as to the mode of their performance of their duties as carriers of passengers,” is well settled. Johnson v. R. R. Co., 46 N. H. 213; Cheney v. R. R. Co., 11 Met. 121; Cleveland, etc., R. R. Co. v. Bartram, 11 Ohio St. 457; Pittsburg, etc., R. R. Co. v. Nuzum, 50 Ind. 141. In the latter case it was held that: “The duty of the railroad company to the public requires that she should run her trains according to her rules and regulations, without infringing them to accommodate a single passenger,” and that “it is the duty of a person about to take passage, to inquire when, where and how he can go, or stop, according to the regulations, and if he makes a mistake, not induced by the agent of the company, he has no remedy.”

A railroad operated at random, without fixed rules and regulations to be observed in its management, would be a nuisance and a terror to the country through which it might pass. The probability that innumerable accidents and injuries would result from such a reckless mode of moving trains, requires the adoption and strict enforcement of reasonable regulations for their operation and management. A departure from such rules and regulations which should occasion an injury to a passenger who is presumed to take passage with reference to them, would render the company liable to such passenger in damages; and this liability cannot co-exist with the...