Northern Cent. Ry. Co. v. Newman
| Decision Date | 22 January 1904 |
| Citation | 56 A. 973,98 Md. 507 |
| Parties | NORTHERN CENT. RY. CO. v. NEWMAN. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Baltimore City Court; J. Upshur Dennis, Judge.
Action by Rosie Newman against the Northern Central Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and BRISCOE, BOYD, PAGE, PEARCE SCHMUCKER, and JONES, JJ.
Shirley Carter, for appellant.
William Colton, for appellee.
It appears from the record in this case that the appellee sued the appellant, a railroad corporation, in the court below alleging in her narr., as a cause of action, briefly stated that the appellant assaulted and beat her, and caused her to be assaulted and beaten, and detained, restrained, and unlawfully imprisoned her, and caused her to be so detained, restrained, and unlawfully imprisoned. The case was tried before a jury, and upon the trial there was evidence on the part of the appellee that on the 27th of January, 1902, she was a passenger on the cars of the appellant going from Baltimore City to Sparrows Point, a station on the railroad operated by the appellant; that she had purchased and paid the price of, a ticket entitling her to transportation over said railroad from the former place to the latter; and that while being so transported, and upon arrival at her destination, she was forcibly detained in and prevented from leaving the cars by the employés of the appellant for some minutes after other passengers had left. At the conclusion of the testimony in the case the appellee asked three instructions to the jury, and the appellant one, all of which were granted. The verdict of the jury, under these instructions, was in favor of the appellee, and from the judgment entered thereon the appellant brought this appeal.
The question presented for the consideration of this court arises upon exception taken by the appellant to the action of the court below upon the prayers. The appellee's first prayer instructed the jury that if they should find from the evidence that she was a passenger on a car of the appellant and "while such passenger the conductor in charge thereof, by means of force and violence, detained" her "in her seat or in said car against her will," then she was entitled to recover. Her second prayer, that, in assessing the damages, if they should find for the appellee, they were "to take into consideration the nature of the force applied to the plaintiff, her sense of indignity and humiliation, and award her such sum as, under all the circumstances of the case," they might "deem a fair and reasonable compensation therefor." Her third prayer was as follows: "If the jury find from the evidence that the conductor acted willfully and with intent to inflict pain and humiliation upon the plaintiff, then they may award her exemplary or punitive damages as a punishment to the defendant for such wrongful act." The appellant filed special exceptions to this third prayer on the ground that there was "no legally sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that the conductor acted willfully and with intent to inflict pain and humiliation upon the plaintiff" (appellee). The court below overruled these exceptions, and to this action of the court, and to the granting of the appellee's prayers, the exception of the appellant was taken. Upon this exception the only ground for the reversal of the judgment in the case which was urged in this court was the ruling of the court below upon the appellee's third prayer. Thus the single question here to be determined is whether there was evidence in the cause competent to authorize an instruction to the jury that they might award the appellee punitive damages. In considering and deciding this question, more particular reference must be made to that part of the testimony upon which the appellee's third prayer was based. The appellee testified on her own behalf that she was making a living by peddling and selling things which she carried from place to place in a bundle, a small one, weighing from 10 to 15 pounds; that she was in the habit of selling all kinds of things, such as stockings, handkerchiefs, towels, etc.; that on the occasion here in question she boarded the cars of the appellant, and sat with the bundle she was then carrying, and which contained articles that had already been ordered, and others that she was carrying to sell, in her lap; that the conductor came for her ticket, which she gave him, and he then demanded a quarter, and, in answer to her inquiry what this was for, said it was for her bundle; that she refused to pay this, protesting that she was a poor woman, and could not afford to pay it; that she saw so many people have big satchels, market baskets, and bags, who did not pay for them; that she had been traveling on the train for eight years, and no other conductor had exacted a charge for her bundle; that this conductor was always demanding pay for her bundle, and a couple of times she paid him the quarter because he took her bundle and went to the baggage room with it; that, upon her persisting in her refusal to pay for the bundle, the conductor said to her: "Just wait, and I will get you in the station;" "Just watch, and I will get you in the station." "He said, 'I will talk to you at the station.' " That the conductor spoke in a loud tone, and seemed angry; that when the station was reached she got up, and, taking her bundle, was about to leave the car...
To continue reading
Request your trial