Matthews v. Southern Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 December 1923 |
| Docket Number | 11365. |
| Citation | 120 S.E. 369,126 S.C. 454 |
| Parties | MATTHEWS v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Barnwell County; N. G Evans, Special Judge.
Action by Betty Matthews against the Southern Railway Company. From an order directing a verdict for defendant upon the issue of punitive damages, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and case remanded for new trial.
J. O Patterson, Jr., and Jas. A. Kennedy, both of Barnwell, for appellant.
Harley & Blatt, of Barnwell, for respondent.
Action for damages, actual and punitive, on account of the alleged willful and negligent conduct of the defendant in refusing to honor a ticket entitling the plaintiff to transportation as a passenger from Williston to Charleston and return. The appeal is from an order of the presiding judge, directing a verdict in favor of the defendant upon the issue of punitive damages. The issue of actual damages was then submitted to the jury, which rendered a small verdict in favor of the plaintiff. (The amount is not stated in the record for appeal.)
The evidence on behalf of the plaintiff tends to show the following facts, as to which there appears to be little or no controversy:
On Sunday morning, September 4, 1921, the plaintiff purchased from the defendant's agent at Williston a round-trip excursion ticket to Charleston. The ticket on its face was limited, as to the return passage, to the train that left Charleston at 3 a. m. on Monday, September 5th. On August 31st, after the tickets had been placed on sale, the general passenger agent of the defendant extended the time of the return passage to the train that left Charleston at 3 a. m on Tuesday, September 6th, on account of the fact that Monday, the 5th, was Labor Day. This extension was also notified by the district passenger agent and published in the News & Courier, a newspaper in Charleston. The agent at Williston received due notice of the extension and so notified the plaintiff both before and at the time the ticket was purchased. On her way to Charleston she was again assured by the conductor who took up the "going" coupon that she had until Tuesday morning to return. On Monday morning she went to the Union Station to take the train leaving Charleston at 8:15 a. m., and presented her ticket to the gateman. He examined it and, discovering that the time limit expressed on its face had expired at 3 a. m., told her that the ticket was not good and that she would not be allowed to board the train with it, handing it back to her. She explained to him what the agent at Williston had told her when she bought the ticket and what the conductor had told her when he took up the other coupon. There was a crowd pressing into the gate, among them several who had tickets similar to the plaintiff's, and she asked to be allowed inside the railing until the matter could be investigated, to which the gateman consented. The gateman then sent for the station master, who came to the gate and examined the ticket. The plaintiff claims that the ticket was taken out of her hand without her consent. We attach no importance to this, as the plaintiff knew that the station master had been sent for and it was necessary that he have the ticket to understand the controversy. He agreed with the gateman that the time limit had expired and told her that she could not ride upon the ticket and that he would see that she did not get on the train with it. She claimed, as was natural, to have been greatly mortified and embarrassed at the implied charge of trying to ride upon a bad ticket. The station master went off, leaving the ticket with the gateman. He was told before he went, by a bystander, that the advertisement confirming the young lady's statement had appeared in the paper. The station master denied this, but stated on the witness stand that he would...
To continue reading
Request your trial