Rose v. Wilmington & W.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 May 1890 |
| Citation | 11 S.E. 526,106 N.C. 168 |
| Parties | ROSE et ux. v. WILMINGTON & W. R. CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Civil actions, tried at December term, 1889, of the superior court of Cumberland county, before MACRAE, J. The plaintiffs husband and wife, had bought return tickets from Fayetteville, N. C., to Old Point, Va., with a condition indorsed that they were to be stamped by the agent at Old Point. The judge instructed the jury in effect that as the feme plaintiff, who brought the suit, failed to have her ticket stamped, the conductor had a right to put her off, and the only question for the jury grew out of his manner of expelling her. Defendant appealed.
In an action for putting plaintiff and her husband off a railway train, it appeared that, their tickets not being stamped as required, the conductor told the husband that they must pay or get off, and at the next station returned and said, in a "brusque, decided manner," to the husband "This is H., if you are going to get off;" and, he replying that he had no intention of getting off unless ordered, the conductor said, "very decidedly, quickly and rudely," "Then I order you off;" at which they got off, but returned, and paid their fare. Held, that the company was not liable for damages for the manner of the expulsion, though plaintiff was riding on pillows and apparently an invalid.
Sutton & Cook, for plaintiffs.
G. M. Rose and Junius Davis, for defendant.
AVERY J., (after stating the facts.)
The judge told the jury in his charge that their inquiry in passing upon the first issue (as to defendant's negligence) was narrowed down to the question whether the feme plaintiff was expelled from the train in a rude and insulting manner, considering her condition at the time, and all of the attendant circumstances. The plaintiff did not appeal, and therefore the question whether the regulation in reference to stamping the ticket was reasonable does not arise, and we must consider this appeal as if it were admitted that the conductor had the right to put the plaintiff off the train. Pickens v. Railroad Co., 104 N.C. 312, 10 S.E. Rep. 556; Boylan v. Railroad Co., 132 U.S. 146, 10 S.Ct. 50; McKinnon v. Morrison, 104 N.C. 354, 10 S.E. Rep. 513.
This court, Justice ASHE delivering the opinion, stated the rule to be that, "when there is an element either of fraud, malice, such a degree of negligence as indicates a reckless indifference to consequences, oppression, insult, rudeness, caprice, willfulness, or other causes of aggravation in the act or omission causing the injury, punitive damages may be awarded by the jury." Holmes v. Railroad Co., 94 N.C. 318; Knowles v. Railroad, 102 N.C. 66, 9 S.E. Rep. 7.
In order to entitle one to recover punitive damages from a railroad company for expulsion from its train, there must be some violation of duty on the part of the servants of the company, accompanied by rudeness, oppression, insult, or one of the concomitants mentioned above. Railroad Co. v. Ballard, 85 Ky. 307, 3 S.W. 530. In this case the conductor finding soon after he took charge of the train that the feme plaintiff who brings this suit against the defendant company for damages, and her husband, did not have tickets that would pass them, told the husband that they must pay or get off, after the husband had urged him to telegraph for leave to them to proceed to Wilson on their unstamped tickets.
The conductor, after giving the notice mentioned, left the husband, went on through the train, and, returning when they reached Halifax, said in a "brusque decided manner," (addressing the husband,) "This is Halifax, if you are going to get off." The husband replied: "I have no intention of...
To continue reading
Request your trial