Oller v. Dixie Greyhound Lines

• Decision Date: 22 June 1932
• Docket Number: No. 5112.,5112.
• Parties: OLLER v. DIXIE GREYHOUND LINES.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

51 S.W.2d 557

OLLER v. DIXIE GREYHOUND LINES.

No. 5112.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 22, 1932.

Appeal from Circuit Court, New Madrid County; John E. Duncan, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by H. H. Oller against the Dixie Greyhound Lines. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Sharp & Baynes, of New Madrid, for appellant.

BAILEY, J.

This is a suit for damages resulting from an alleged breach of contract on the part of defendant by its refusal to carry a passenger for hire on one of defendant's busses. In his petition plaintiff states that defendant is a common carrier of passengers; that on the 8th day of April, 1931, he purchased a ticket at Terrell, Ark., over defendant's bus line, to New Madrid, Mo.; that his ticket was taken up by defendant's agent, the bus driver, and plaintiff was given a hat check; that, upon reaching defendant's station at Blytheville, Ark., he was informed by defendant's said agent that he would have to change busses in order to reach New Madrid, Mo.; that thereafter he boarded one of defendant's busses for New Madrid, but was informed he could not ride on said bus unless he purchased another ticket for the sum of $1.30; that, although plaintiff protested that he had paid his fare and exhibited his said hat check, he was compelled to leave said bus, over his protest; that thereafter he purchased a ticket over defendant's bus line for the sum of $1.30 before he was permitted to ride over defendant's bus line to New Madrid. The prayer of the petition asks damages for the fare of $1.30; for loss of earnings; and for embarrassment and humiliation in the sum of $200.

The answer pleads a tender of $1.40, the fare from Blytheville to New Madrid, and that plaintiff refused to accept a ticket to New Madrid, which defendant's agent at Blytheville offered him.

The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $37, and from this judgment defendant has appealed. The size of the verdict would seem to hardly justify this appeal, but defendant asserts, in oral argument of counsel, that a very important rule of law is involved, which it desires to have settled. This involves the right of plaintiff to recover damages for "embarrassment and humiliation," authorized by plaintiff's instruction No. 1. Defendant urges there was no recoverable damages proven except the additional fare paid, which was tendered by defendant, and that therefore its peremptory instruction directing a verdict for defendant should have been given; it is also assigned as error, as above indicated, that the court gave plaintiff's instruction authorizing a recovery for embarrassment and humiliation.

The evidence tends to support the allegations of the petition in so far as they relate to the purchase of the ticket, the taking up thereof at Blytheville, and the issuing of a hat check in lieu thereof by defendant's bus driver. The evidence further shows that upon the arrival of plaintiff at Blytheville his hat check was not taken up nor was his ticket returned to him, although he was compelled to change busses at that point in order to continue his journey to New Madrid. It is further shown that plaintiff arrived in Blytheville at about 3:30 p. m., and that the bus leaving Blytheville for New Madrid was due to leave at 9:25 p. m., of that date. It is also shown that, at the time the bus was due to leave Blytheville for New Madrid, on said date, plaintiff was at defendant's station in Blytheville, and had his grip put upon the bus then due to depart for New Madrid, but, when he started to board the bus and presented the hat check, which was undated, he was informed that the check was not good for passage and that he could not ride on same; that he refused to then buy another ticket, but the next morning, at 9:35 a. m., he purchased a ticket to New Madrid at the price of $1.30, and went on to New Madrid on one of defendant's busses, arriving at the latter place at about 11:30 a. m. There is no evidence that plaintiff was treated with discourtesy or that any violence or threats were used toward him at the time he was refused passage over defendant's bus line. The evidence as to embarrassment is as follows:

"Q. Was it any embarrassment to you by that conduct? A. Yes, sir.

"Mr. Baynes: We object to that, calls for the conclusion of the witness. Let...