Morrill v. Minneapolis Street Railway Company
| Decision Date | 21 February 1908 |
| Docket Number | 15,328 - (114) |
| Parties | CLARA MORRILL v. MINNEAPOLIS STREET RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $1,074 damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in being forcibly ejected from respondent's street car. The case was tried before John Day Smith, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $100. From an order denying its motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Street Car -- Contract of Carriage.
A passenger on a street car, who has paid his fare, is by virtue of that fact entitled to ride to the end of a line to which, under the city ordinances, he is entitled to be transferred. The contract of carriage is complete when the fare is paid.
Duty to Give Proper Transfer Slip.
Upon demand by the passenger it is the duty of the conductor to give a proper transfer slip, such as should be accepted by the conductor of the car to which the passenger is transferred.
Duty to Give Proper Transfer Slip -- Duty of Conductor.
The duty to see that a proper transfer slip is given rests upon the conductor, and not upon the passenger.
Evidence of Right to Ride.
The transfer slip is not the sole and exclusive evidence of the passenger's right to ride.
Examination of Transfer Slip.
No absolute duty rests upon the passenger to examine the transfer slip when it is delivered to him and see that it is for the proper car and is properly punched. He may rely upon the inference that the conductor has properly done his work and performed the duty imposed upon him.
Ejection from Car -- Duty to Leave -- Damages.
A passenger entered a crowded Interurban car in the city of Minneapolis, paid her fare, and asked for a transfer to the Chicago avenue line. A transfer slip was given her by the conductor as the car approached the transfer point. Without examining the slip, the passenger entered the Chicago avenue car, which was then waiting. Upon presenting the slip it was refused by the conductor of the Chicago avenue car, and upon her refusal to pay another fare she was ejected from the car. She acted in good faith, and informed the conductor of the circumstances under which she received the slip. Held that:
(a) She can maintain an action in tort against the railway company for the damages resulting from her expulsion from the car and is not limited to an action for damages for breach of the contract to carry.
(b) The damages recoverable in such cases are such as naturally result from the wrongful act of the conductor in ejecting the passenger, taking into consideration the humiliation suffered, and including such special damages as are alleged and proven.
(c) The right of action is complete when the passenger is ordered to leave the car under circumstances which show that force will be used unless the order is obeyed. Actual force need not be used.
(d) When a passenger is thus ordered to leave a street car, it is his duty to comply with the order quietly and without insisting upon the application of actual force. If he resists the efforts of the company's agent to eject him, he can recover no additional damages resulting from the use of such force, as is reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose.
Jno. W Arctander and Munn & Thygeson, for appellant.
Geo. W. Armstrong, for respondent.
This action was brought against the Minneapolis Street Railway Company to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the wrongful and illegal expulsion of the plaintiff from one of its cars. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $100, and the appeal is from an order denying a motion for judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.
There was evidence tending to show that on September 5, 1906, the plaintiff entered one of the defendant's cars of the Interurban line near the Great Western depot on Washington avenue South in the city of Minneapolis. The car was crowded. The conductor collected from her a fare of five cents, which entitled her to be carried as a passenger to the end of any line of cars to which she was entitled to be transferred as provided by the city ordinances. The Interurban line of cars crossed the line known as the Eighth & Central at Hennepin avenue, and this was a regular transfer point from one line to the other. As the Interurban car approached Hennepin avenue, the plaintiff, with a number of other passengers, moved towards the rear end of the car, where the conductor was handing out transfer slips to those who were about to alight. She asked the conductor for a transfer to the Eighth & Central line, and in response to such request he gave her a transfer, which she accepted without examination. She then passed hurriedly across the street and entered a car which was standing at the crossing. The conductor intended to give her a transfer which would entitle her to ride on the car which she entered, but when it was presented on the Eighth & Central car the conductor refused it, and, upon her refusal to pay another fare, ejected her from the car. When she presented the transfer, the conductor examined it and said, "This is no good," after which he tore it up and threw it upon the floor. The plaintiff informed the conductor of the circumstances under which she had received the slip, and demanded that he accept the evidence which she presented and allow her to ride on the car. The defendant's evidence tended to show that the plaintiff presented an old transfer slip, which had been issued on another line on the previous day; but upon the issues of fact the jury found in favor of the plaintiff, and we must assume for the purposes of this appeal that the facts were as stated by the plaintiff and her witnesses.
The record presents the very important and interesting question of the liability of a street railway company for damages for the expulsion by one of its agents of a passenger who in good faith tenders a transfer slip which appears upon its face to be invalid, when such apparent invalidity was caused by the negligent act of another of the company's agents. The frequency with which this question arises in large cities under modern conditions makes it desirable that the subject should receive full and careful consideration.
The right of a street railway company to make reasonable rules to facilitate its business and protect itself from imposition and fraud is questioned by no one. If such rules do not impose unreasonable and unnecessary burdens and restrictions upon the public, and are consistent with the rights of the public to transportation, they will be enforced by the courts. Clark, Accident Law, § 81; Booth, Street Railway Law, § 337; Nellis, Street Surface Railroads, § 8; 4 Elliott, Railroads (2d Ed.) § 1576. It is also conceded that a rule which requires transfer checks is reasonable. But it is the duty of the carrier to furnish the passenger who has paid his legal fare with a correct and valid transfer check. If the conductor, in response to a request, delivers a check which is void or irregular upon its face, and for that reason is refused when presented to another conductor, there is a breach of a valid contract to carry the passenger to his place of destination; and, if the passenger is ejected from the car, the company is liable for the breach of the contract. So far the authorities are practically in accord, but there is great diversity of opinion as to whether an action in tort will lie for the wrongful expulsion, Clark, Accident Law, § 83.
Upon the authority of one line of cases the appellant contends that, when a passenger receives a transfer slip, it is his duty to examine it and see if a mistake has been made by the conductor; that the transfer slip is the sole and conclusive evidence, as between the passenger and the second conductor, of the right of the passenger to ride on the second car; that the conductor can look only to the transfer slip for the evidence of the passenger's right, and may not consider or be governed by any statement or explanation made by the passenger. The result is that, if the transfer is not on its face such as to entitle the passenger to ride on the car, it is the right and duty of the conductor to require the payment of another fare, and upon refusal to eject the passenger from the car. If this view is correct, it necessarily follows that the passenger who is thus ejected has no right of action against the company to recover damages for the wrongful expulsion. On the other hand, the respondent contends, and the trial court in effect held, that a passenger may rightfully rely upon the acts and statements of the first conductor, whose duty it is to give a valid transfer; that it is immaterial that the company's acts are the acts of different agents; that it is liable for the acts of each agent, and therefore an innocent passenger, who is wrongfully ejected, may recover the resulting damages from the company in an action of tort.
1. As the authorities in other jurisdictions are conflicting, they have been examined with care, in order to discover, if possible, a reasonable and practical rule which will protect the legal rights of individuals without seriously interfering with the business of the carriers. Numerous cases upon both sides of the controversy and illustrating its various phases will be found collected in a note to Sprenger v Tacoma (15 Wash. 660, 47 P. 17) in 43 L.R.A. 706. Regardless of minor differences of theory, these cases fall naturally into two groups, one of which places the primary stress upon the right of the passenger, while the other emphasizes the importance of...
To continue reading
Request your trial