Purcell v. Richmond & D.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 March 1891
• Citation: 12 S.E. 954,108 N.C. 414
• Parties: PURCELL v. RICHMOND & D. R. Co.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

12 S.E. 954

108 N.C. 414

PURCELL v. RICHMOND & D. R. Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 17, 1891

Appeal from superior court, Alamance county; MACRAE, Judge.

The plaintiff asked the court to charge the jury that if they believed that the defendant stopped its train at Mebane, and received and discharged passengers, and also at Graham, and there received 12 or 15 passengers, and discharged 2 or 3 and that there was then room, standing or sitting, for 50 or 60 persons at the time the train passed Haw River, and that a part of the tickets were sold to persons at Haw River the evening before, and in due time to communicate with the officers of the company, then to run by, as shown in this action, is such willful disregard of the rights of the plaintiff as would entitle him to recover punitive damages. This prayer was refused, and plaintiff excepts. The court instructs the jury that, upon the testimony, they would not be warranted in finding the defendant guilty of such a degree of negligence as indicated,--a reckless indifference to consequences, oppression, needless caprice, willfulness, or other cause of aggravation, as would entitle plaintiff to punitive damages. The measure of damages upon the admitted facts, or those proven, if the jury believe the testimony would be the price paid for the ticket, 15 cents, and the amount paid for another conveyance to Burlington, 25 cents. Appeal by plaintiff.

A railroad company commits a tort, and becomes liable for punitive damages, in willfully failing to stop for passengers at a regular station; and cannot escape liability on the ground that there was not sufficient room in the train, if it appears that by reasonable diligence it might have provided extra cars.

J. A Long, for appellant.

D. Schenck and F. H. Busbee, for appellee.

CLARK J.

Code, § 1963 provides: "Every railroad corporation shall start and run their cars for the transportation of passengers and property at regular times, to be fixed by public notice, and shall furnish sufficient accommodation for the transportation of all such passengers and property as shall, within a reasonable time previous thereto, be offered for transportation at the place of starting and the junction of other railroads, and at usual stopping places established for receiving and discharging way passengers and freights for that train, and shall take, transport, and discharge such passengers and property at, from, and to such places on due payment of the freight or fare legally authorized therefor and shall be liable to the party aggrieved in an action for damages for any neglect or refusal in the premises." For a violation of such statutory duty the plaintiff might have sued in contract, (Hodges v. Railroad Co., 105 N.C. 170, 10 S.E. Rep. 917;) but he could elect to sue in tort for the injury, and the breach of public duty, (existing independent of the statute,) by the willfulness or negligence of defendant, (Bish. Non-Cont. Law, §§ 73,74.) If the tort was committed by mere negligence of the defendant, as simple carelessness or inadvertence, the plaintiff would be restricted to compensatory damages, and, as no special damages were alleged and shown, other than obtaining another conveyance, the measure of damages, as laid down by the court, to-wit, the price of the ticket and of procuring such other conveyance, 40 cents in all, would have been correct. But if the conduct of the defendant was willful, or showed such gross negligence as to indicate a wanton disregard of the rights of the plaintiff, he was entitled to recover punitive damages in addition. Railroads are granted valuable franchises and privileges by virtue of the state's...