Penna. R. R. Co. v. Spicker

• Decision Date: 10 November 1884
• Citation: Penna. R. R. Co. v. Spicker, 105 Pa. 142 (Pa. 1884)
• Parties: Pennsylvania Railroad Company <I>versus</I> Spicker.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 142

105 Pa. 142

Pennsylvania Railroad Company versus Spicker.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

January 22, 1884.

November 10, 1884.

January 22, 1884.

Before MERCUR, C. J., GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT, GREEN and CLARK, JJ.

ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Philadelphia county: Of July term, 1883, No. 152.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Wayne Mac Veagh, for the plaintiff in error.—Our offer should have been admitted to prove public notice of the regulations under which the excursion tickets were sold. The plaintiff's contract was subject to those regulations, the ticket was not the whole contract, but merely the token which entitled the holder to passage on the train; Crosby v. Maine Cen. R. W. Co., 69 Me., 418; Rawson v. Pa. R. R. Co., 48 N. Y., 217; Burnham v. Grand Trunk R. R. Co., 63 Me., 298; Johnson v. Concord R. R. Co., 46 N. H., 213; Quimby v. Vanderbilt, 17 N. Y., 306; Denton v. G. N. R. R. Co., 5 El. & Bl., 860; Hurst v. G. W. R. R. Co. 19 Com. B., 310. The liability, if any existed, was that of the Northern Central Railway Company, and not that of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. The contract for travel between Harrisburg and Sunbury was with the former company which owned the track and the franchise at the locus in quo. By the express language printed on the ticket the Pennsylvania Railroad Company in selling the through ticket acted as agent for other lines, and assumed no responsibility beyond its own line: Penna. R. R. Co. v. Schwarzenberger, 9 Wr., 208. The case is not different because the car in which plaintiff was, belonged to the Pennsylvania R. R. Co., and was in charge of a P. R. R. conductor, running under arrangements for through trains. It is well understood, and was amply proved in this case, that the conductor while on the line of the Northern Central road was governed exclusively by the directions of that company, and in refusing the plaintiff's ticket was acting under their instructions, and not under those of the Pa. R. R. Co., nor in the line of his employment by the latter company. The court erred in declining our third point and in leaving the question of damages generally to the discretion of the jury. As is usual in suits against railroad corporations, where such latitude is allowed, the jury found exorbitant damages. The true measure of damages in this case is well stated in Quigley v. Central Pacific Co., 5 Sawyer, Cir. Ct., 107.

The plaintiff below was notified before arriving at Dauphin that his ticket was not good, and was permitted to ride free to that point, the conductor thus affording him the option to leave the train at that station, buy a ticket, pay his fare to the conductor, or be put off. The plaintiff below chose the last, and cannot visit on the company consequential and speculative damages arising from his own act.

William W. Wiltbank (D. M. M. Collins with him) for the defendant in error.

Mr. Justice STERRETT delivered the opinion of the court November 10, 1884.

It was incumbent on the plaintiff below to prove that he was entitled to a seat in the car on which he was travelling at the time he was forcibly removed therefrom; and, that the conductor, who was in charge of the train and by whom he was ejected from the car, was then an employee of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, acting within the general scope of his authority as such conductor. If these facts were established to the satisfaction of the jury, and nothing was shown to justify the action of the conductor, it necessarily followed that a trespass was committed for which the company was liable in damages; and, under proper instructions by the court as to the measure of damages, it was the exclusive province of the jury to determine the amount thereof, subject of course to the power of the court to set aside the verdict in case the damages awarded were clearly excessive and the plaintiff below refused to remit such excess. In view of the testimony, the damages in this case appear to us to be exorbitant; but, we have no right to grant relief on that ground alone. The power to do so was exclusively in the court below, and its refusal to exercise the discretion with which it was invested is not the subject of review here.

For the purpose of showing his right to travel on the train from which he was ejected, the plaintiff below gave in evidence a ticket of which the following is a copy:

"Pennsylvania Railroad Company. This excursion ticket entitles the bearer to one trip to Philadelphia, Pa., and return. This ticket is void unless officially stamped and dated. In selling this ticket over other roads this company acts only as an agent, and assumes no responsibility beyond its own line. . . . . . The checks belonging to this ticket will be void if detached."

Attached to the ticket is a check as follows, viz.: "Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Phila. & Erie R. R. Div. One first-class passage, Sunbury to Williamsport. This check is not good if detached. Philadelphia, Pa., and return." Also another check which reads as follows: "Issued by Pennsylvania Railroad Company, on account of Northern Central Railroad. One first-class passage, Harrisburg to Sunbury. This check is not good if detached. Philadelphia, Pa., and return." Stamped on the back of the ticket is the following, viz.: "Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 237, Passenger Department, Pennsylvania R. R. Office, Aug. 22, Williamsport."

The ticket, of which the foregoing is substantially a copy, was purchased...