Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Laney, 209

• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: BROWN, J.
• Citation: 69 So. 993,14 Ala.App. 287
• Decision Date: 19 October 1915
• Docket Number: 209
• Parties: LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO. v. LANEY.

69 So. 993

14 Ala.App. 287

LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO.
v.
LANEY.

No. 209

Court of Appeals of Alabama

October 19, 1915

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; W.W. Pearson, Judge.

Action by J.E. Laney against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company for damages for injury to him while a passenger. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The first count states the relation of passenger and carrier and a right to ride from East St. Louis to Montgomery, and that at a point in Tennessee, known as Franklin, plaintiff was ejected from said train by the conductor in charge thereof; he at the time using language derogatory to plaintiff's character as an honest man, etc. The second count states the cause of action in the same manner, but a little more fully. The third count is for willfully and forcibly ejecting plaintiff. The fourth count alleges the purchase by plaintiff of a ticket at East St. Louis, Ill., from the agents and servants of defendant entitling him to ride upon passenger trains operated by defendant from said initial point to Montgomery, Ala., and that he took passage on one of said trains on the night of November 27, 1913, having previously obtained said ticket at and for the sum of $15.02, and that on the 20th day of November, 1913, while plaintiff was on said train, at a point in Tennessee known as Franklin, a station on defendant's railway line, the conductor, servants, or agents of defendant in charge of the train, on which plaintiff was, ejected plaintiff from said train, and in so doing said servants and agents used abusive, insulting, and derogatory language concerning plaintiff and his character as an honest man, in the presence and hearing of sundry persons, and by reason of such conduct plaintiff was greatly humiliated, etc. Defendant filed to each and every count of the complaint the following plea:

It says that this court ought not to have and maintain jurisdiction of the action set up therein, for that said defendant avers that the alleged cause of action therein set up, if any plaintiff has, did not arise, nor did the injury therein complained of occur, in Montgomery county in the state of Alabama, but in the state of Tennessee, and that plaintiff does not reside in the said county of Montgomery and defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Kentucky; wherefore, since the said action is brought for a personal injury within the meaning of section 6112, Code of Alabama, in a county other than the county in which the injury occurred, and other than the county in which plaintiff resides, the defendant corporation prays the judgment of the circuit court of Montgomery county if said court will or ought to have further cognizance of said action

This plea was duly verified.

The following charges were refused to defendant:

(1) Affirmative charge as to the fourth count

(2) General affirmative charge.

(3) In this case plaintiff cannot recover any damages on account of the wrongful conduct of defendant's conductor or agent.

(4) If the jury believe from the evidence that defendant conductor requested of plaintiff that he furnish him his ticket authorizing him to ride upon said train, or pay his fare for riding thereon, and that after such request plaintiff failed or refused to present his ticket to the conductor or to pay his fare, then you cannot find a verdict for defendant.

(5) If you believe from the evidence that plaintiff failed or refused to exhibit his railroad ticket to the conductor or to pay his railroad fare to the conductor after demand was made therefor by said conductor, and such failure or refusal took place without any wrongful conduct on the part of defendant' s said conductor, or of any employé or agent of defendant in charge of said train, then your verdict must be for defendant.

(6) If the jury believe from the evidence that plaintiff was required to leave the train as the result of any negligence on the part of the conductor of the Pullman car, then you cannot find a verdict for plaintiff under count 4.

(7) If the jury believe from the evidence that plaintiff's inability to furnish his ticket to the conductor, upon request to him made therefor by such conductor, and that such failure was the result of the negligence or wrongful act of employé of the Pullman Car Company, then you cannot find a verdict for plaintiff in this case.

(8) If the jury find from the evidence that defendant has proven to their reasonable satisfaction one of its pleas filed in this case, then the judgment must be for defendant.

(9) If you believe that plaintiff is entitled to recover, then I charge you he can recover only the amount which it reasonably cost him from being delayed in passage.

(10) In this case plaintiff cannot recover damages for any personal injury or insult to him on the part of the servant or agent of defendant in charge of the train.

(11) The only damages which can be asserted in this case against defendant, if you find from the evidence that plaintiff is entitled to recover, are such damages as are a direct result of a

...