Mullan v. Wisconsin Central Co.

• Decision Date: 03 July 1891
• Citation: 46 Minn. 474
• Parties: CHARLES MULLAN <I>vs.</I> WISCONSIN CENTRAL COMPANY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

46 Minn. 474

CHARLES MULLANvs.

WISCONSIN CENTRAL COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 3, 1891.

Action brought in the district court for Ramsey county, to recover $5,000 damages for defendant's failure to protect plaintiff from an assault and battery by a fellow-passenger on one of its trains. Trial before Otis, J., who ordered a dismissal at the close of the evidence for plaintiff, who appeals from an order refusing a new trial.

Kueffner & Fauntleroy, for appellant.

Lusk, Bunn & Hadley, for respondent.

VANDERBURGH, J.

This action is brought against the defendant to recover damages for an assault committed upon plaintiff by a fellow-passenger on board of one of defendant's cars. The plaintiff was a passenger, and entitled to protection as such. Railway carriers of passengers are bound to exercise the highest care and diligence in the conduct and management of their business, to prevent accidents or injuries to passengers on their trains. This is the general rule as applied to the ordinary discharge of their duties as carriers. In respect to the danger of injuries from the misconduct of fellow-passengers, and the duty of enforcing proper police regulations, the obligation of the carrier is qualified or limited by the nature of its relation to the passenger. It has no right either to refuse to receive or to expel a passenger, except for good cause. It must exercise the greatest diligence consistent with its obligations to the public and all the passengers, and neglect no reasonable precaution to protect passengers from insult or injury from its servants or fellow-passengers; but as respects passengers there is no such privity between them and the carrier as to make the latter directly liable for their wrongful acts, (Carpenter v. Boston & Albany R. Co., 24 Hun, 107,) and it can only interfere under an implied police power to prevent an abuse of their privileges as passengers. It is held in general terms that the carrier is bound to exercise the utmost diligence in maintaining order and guarding the passengers against violence, from whatever source arising, which might reasonably be anticipated or naturally be expected to occur, in view of all the circumstances and the number and character of the persons on board. Flint v. Norwich & N. Y. Transportation Co., 34 Conn. 554. If this duty is neglected without good cause, and a passenger receives injury which might have been reasonably anticipated or naturally expected, from one who is improperly received or permitted to continue as a passenger, the carrier is responsible. Putnam v. Broadway & 7th Ave. R. Co., 55 N. Y. 108, 113; Weeks v. N. Y., etc., R. Co., 72 N. Y. 50, 59. That...