Payne v. Atlantic Greyhound Bus Lines

• Decision Date: 18 November 1936
• Docket Number: 14384.
• Citation: 188 S.E. 426,182 S.C. 58
• Parties: PAYNE v. ATLANTIC GREYHOUND BUS LINES (three cases).
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

188 S.E. 426

182 S.C. 58

PAYNE v. ATLANTIC GREYHOUND BUS LINES (three cases).

No. 14384.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

November 18, 1936

Appeal from Greenville County Court; John L. Plyler, Judge.

Action by P. O. Payne, by Porter Payne, Jr., by his guardian ad litem, P. O. Payne, and by Carolyn Payne by her guardian ad litem, P. O. Payne, against the Atlantic Greyhound Bus Lines.

From adverse judgments, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Tobias & Turner, of Columbia, and Price & Poag, of Greenville, for appellant.

J Robert Martin, of Greenville, for respondents.

BAKER Justice.

There are three cases involved, but all three were tried together in county court of Greenville county, and the appeal to this court treats them as one case.

They are actions in tort for the alleged invasion of the rights of respondents, P. O. Payne and his two children, P. O. Payne Jr., and Carolyn Payne, as passengers at the hands of appellant, a common carrier of passengers for hire, and upon the trial of the cases, there was testimony to the following:

On the early morning of July 20, 1935, before the ticket office opened, respondents boarded one of appellant's well-equipped and modern busses at Bessemer City, N. C., and purchased from the driver of the bus, tickets, that is, a full-fare ticket and a one-half fare ticket, one of the children being under the age for which a ticket is required if accompanied, from said point to Atlanta, Ga. When respondents got on the bus, the driver assisted them with their baggage, consisting of two grips and two packages. The grips were placed in a rack above the seats, but the bundles were placed and kept on the seats provided for passengers. During the trip P. O. Payne, Jr., became nauseated, and the bus was stopped, and he allowed to get off and walk around for a few minutes, but in the vicinity of Greer this respondent vomited in the bus, and the driver assisted in cleaning the floor thereof, and in fact was very nice and rendered every assistance from the time the child became "sick on his stomach." There is no claim that the driver left undone anything he should have done in reference thereto. When the bus reached Greenville, it was announced that all passengers should get off; that the bus would be mopped and cleaned, but to leave baggage and bundles in the bus; that there would be a stop of 20 or 25 minutes. It was Saturday morning, and experience had taught appellant that on Saturdays there was considerable more passengers than ordinarily, and before reaching Greenville, the driver of the bus had telephoned to the agent of appellant at Greenville advising of the number of passengers then on the bus for points beyond Greenville. Appellant kept at Greenville an extra bus, a much older model, and not so commodious and not as comfortable as the bus regularly in use, to make extra trips to care for the overflow of passengers. As would be known in railroad parlance, the bus would very often, on week-ends, run in two sections. Following the announcement that all passengers should get off the bus at Greenville for it to be cleaned, respondents and the other passengers left the bus, respondents going to a nearby barber shop "and washed the boy." When respondents returned to the bus for the purpose of entering it to resume their trip thereon, they were informed by the driver that the bus had already filled with passengers, and that they could not re-enter; that another bus was being prepared to take passengers who were unable to find seats, and that respondents would have to ride this other bus. Respondents, after an inspection of the other bus, refused to ride same, and demanded their baggage, which was refused, the driver telling them they could get it at Atlanta, and according to the testimony of respondents, they were finally told by the driver of the bus, he did not care how they got to Atlanta.

Of course, in giving the above résumé of the testimony, we have largely followed that of respondents. There was in this case, as in all other contested cases, a conflict in the testimony, but in regard to the cardinal facts, there is little, if any, dispute.

It was testified by witnesses for appellant that in addition to the special bus, respondents were informed that another commodious and modern bus of appellant left Greenville for Atlanta by a different and slightly shorter route within a few minutes, and that they could ride such bus. It was undisputed that there was such bus scheduled.

The respondents went from Greenville to Atlanta on a train, reaching Atlanta several hours later than if they had been transported on the original bus, and upon calling for their baggage, the two bundles could not be found. So much for the general facts.

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of respondents' complaints are as follows:

"(2) That the defendant, Atlantic Greyhound Bus Lines on July 20th, 1935, sold to the plaintiff transportation as a passenger from the City of Bessemer City, in the State of North Carolina, to the City of Atlanta, State of Georgia, upon one of its well-equipped and modern arranged buses and upon reaching the City of Greenville, South Carolina, its agents and servants in charge thereof announced to the plaintiff and passengers thereon that there would be a stop of twenty minutes, said stop being for the purpose of recreation and rest of passengers at its commodious bus station in the City of Greenville designed for the convenience, comfort and accommodations of the plaintiff and other passengers. That the plaintiff, acting upon the custom and the specific instructions of the defendants' agents and servants, took advantage of said stop and rest period, disembarked, leaving packages and baggage in seat occupied from Bessemer City, North Carolina, to Greenville, South Carolina, and returned thereto within time limit for stop, but found said bus upon which he had ridden from Bessemer City, North Carolina, to Greenville, South Carolina, completely occupied and overcrowded by other passengers, the said agents in charge thereof having sold seats and accommodations thereon, which the plaintiff had purchased, to other and new passengers, the defendants' agents and servants insisting upon the plaintiff riding upon an ill-provised rickety, uncomfortable and unsafe bus, which defendant, its agents and servants had in the demand of extra Saturday travel at said time hastily procured, the defendants' agents and servants driving away taking the plaintiff's baggage and packages, stating to plaintiff that he could either take passage for the remainder of his journey with his small children upon the said substituted bus or procure passage by extra and outside means.

(3) That the acts of the defendant in announcing rest period in Greenville for twenty minutes and thereby inducing the plaintiff to leave first bus and selling said seat which the plaintiff had purchased, and attempting to force the plaintiff to use instead thereof an ill-provised, uncomfortable, dangerous and unsafe means of transportation for the remainder of his journey, and carrying the plaintiff's baggage and personal property on and destroying and losing the same, were high-handed and in violation of the rights of the plaintiff in the circumstances and constituted a wanton, willful trespass upon his rights in the circumstances to his damage in the sum of Three Thousand ($3,000.00) Dollars."

Respondent's answer was a general denial; a specific denial of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the complaint, and several special defenses. Paragraphs 3, 4, and 8 of the answer were as follows:

"3. Further answering said complaint, the Defendant alleges that on or about the 20th day of July, 1935, it had upon its southbound bus arriving in the City of Greenville, State aforesaid, a number of passengers for points beyond the said City of Greenville, State aforesaid. That a number of additional passengers for points south of Greenville, South Carolina, were at Greenville and presented themselves for transportation on the Defendant's said schedule. That the Defendant's agent in charge of said bus made all necessary, required and proper arrangements to furnish reasonable, safe, convenient and adequate accommodations for all such passengers by securing an additional bus for the said southward schedule.

4. That there was maintained and operated from Greenville on the occasion hereinabove referred to adequate, proper, convenient and safe accommodations for all persons who had either purchased or indicated their willingness to purchase transportation along said route upon the conveyances of this Defendant. That reasonable, adequate, convenient and safe accommodations upon the motor vehicles operated by the defendant were tendered, proffered and made available to the Plaintiff."

"8. Further answering said complaint, the Defendant alleges that every reasonable convenience and courtesy was afforded the Plaintiff while a passenger upon the Defendant's motor vehicle. That the bus, or buses, upon which accommodations were available to the Plaintiff, on the schedule, hereinbefore referred to, did continue its southward trip upon said route over which the Plaintiff alleges to have purchased a contract of transportation without mishap and to the entire enjoyment and comfort of all passengers thereon."

The answer further sets up sole negligence and willfulness of respondents; contributory negligence and willfulness of respondents, and that appellant had discharged its every obligation or duty to respondents, if any such obligation or duty existed.

A trial of the cases resulted in the jury returning a verdict in each case for $333.33 1/3, totaling $1,000 in all three cases according to the transcript of record. We learn from the printed argument of counsel that of the above...