Phettiplace v. N. Pac. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 March 1893
• Citation: 54 N.W. 1092,84 Wis. 412
• Parties: PHETTIPLACE v. NORTHERN PAC. R. CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

84 Wis. 412

54 N.W. 1092

PHETTIPLACE

v.NORTHERN PAC. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

March 21, 1893.

Appeal from circuit court, Douglas county; R. D. Marshall, Judge.

Action by Walter Phettiplace against the Northern Pacific Railroad Company for ejection from defendant's car. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The further facts fully appear in the following statement by LYON, C. J.:

Plaintiff was a passenger on a train of cars run by the defendant company on its railway, and was expelled therefrom because of his alleged refusal to pay his fare. This action is to recover damages for such expulsion. The plaintiff purchased a ticket at the city of Superior for passage on defendant's railway from that point to Pike Lake, a station on the same railway east of Superior. He went upon a passenger train, and commenced his journey. Before reaching Pike Lake he concluded to go on to Topside, a station about two miles east of Pike Lake, and so informed the conductor of the train, who took up plaintiff's ticket. After the train had passed Pike Lake, the conductor called upon plaintiff for his additional fare from Pike Lake to Topside. The regular fare was 7 cents, and the plaintiff offered the conductor that sum, but the latter refused to receive it in payment of his fare, and, under a rule of the company, demanded 25 cents additional, and informed the plaintiff that he would give him a voucher which would entitle him to receive from the company such additional 25 cents, if called for at Superior or certain other stations on the defendant's road. The plaintiff refused to pay the additional 25 cents, and the conductor stopped his train at a point from one half to three fourths of a mile east of Pike Lake, which point was not a usual stopping place for trains, and was not near any dwelling house, and compelled the plaintiff to leave the train. The plaintiff walked on the track to Topside. Pike Lake was a mere flag station, and tickets for passage on the railway could not be purchased or obtained there. On the above facts, which are undisputed, the court instructed the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, but restricted the recovery to compensatory damages for injury to plaintiff's feelings resulting from the humiliation of being unlawfully driven from the train. The plaintiff testified as a witness on the trial as follows: “When conductor stopped train between Pike Lake and Topside, he acted pretty cranky and overbearing, as he would just as leave throw me off as not. He informed me that his instructions were to charge twenty-five cents extra, and he would have to charge me that, or I would have to get off. Conductor told me to hurry up; put his left hand on my shoulder, and shoved me off the car. He pushed me hard enough so I came pretty near going off head first down the slide. * * * I was put off the train on a fill about ten feet high, amid timber and barren lands. * * * The car was quite full of people. * * * Saw people laughing at what occurred; had their heads out of the window, and were laughing.” Some of the above testimony was controverted by the conductor and brakeman of the train. The jury assessed plaintiff's damages at $300. The court denied a motion for a new trial, one of the grounds of which was that the damages were excessive. The defendant appeals from the judgment against it, entered pursuant to the verdict.

Catlin & Butler and Carl C. Pope, for appellant.

Taylor & Armstrong, for respondent.

LYON, C. J., (after stating the facts).

The court properly directed a verdict for plaintiff, for two reasons: (1) The plaintiff was expelled from the cars away from a usual stopping place, and not near a dwelling house. Section 1818, Rev. St., provides that, “if any passenger shall...