Smith v. Seabd. Air Line Ry. Co
| Decision Date | 15 January 1912 |
| Docket Number | (No. 3,163.) |
| Citation | 10 Ga.App. 227,73 S.E. 523 |
| Parties | SMITH. v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
A rule or regulation promulgated by the Railroad Commission of this state relating to the reception of passengers by railroad companies and the keeping open of their depots and stations must be presumed to be just and reasonable, and whether such rule or regulation is reasonable or not is a question of law.
[Kd. Note.—For other cases, see Railroads, Cent. Dig. § 740; Dec. Dig. § 226.*]
The fact that a rule or regulation prescribed by the Railroad Commission for the conduct of the railroad companies with reference to the keeping open of their depots and stations and the reception of passengers therein may in a particular case result in hardship or injury is not a criterion by which to test the reasonableness of the rule. If the rule or regulation conduces to the interest of the railroad company and works no hardship to the traveling public generally, it must be considered as reasonable.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Railroads, Cent. Dig. § 740; Dec. Dig. § 226.*]
A person coming to a railroad station with the intention of taking the next train is in contemplation of law a passenger, provided his coming is within a reasonable time before the departure of the train.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. §§ 984-993; Dec. Dig. § 247.*]
Rule No. 10 of the Railroad Commission of Georgia, which provides: —is reasonable; and one who comes to the depot for the purpose of taking a train is not a "passenger, " unless his coming is within the limitations of the rule.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. § 973; Dec. Dig. § 238;2-* Railroads, Dec. Dig. § 226.*]
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 6, pp. 5218-5227; vol. 8, p. 7748.]
The allegations of the petition, construed in the light of the above-quoted rule, set up no cause of action, and the trial judge properly sustained the demurrer and dismissed the petition.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. §§ 1273-1280; Dec. Dig. § 314.*]
Error from Superior Court, Liberty County; P. E. Seabrook, Judge.
Action by Ida Smith against the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Plaintiff in error brought suit in the county court of Liberty county against the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company to recover damages for a tort The court sustained a general demurrer to the petition, and the plaintiff petitioned for a writ of certiorari. On the hearing of the certiorari in the superior court the judgment of the lower court was affirmed, and on exceptions to this judgment the case is here for review. The petition makes in substance the following case:
At 8 o'clock at night the petitioner, in company with two other persons, went to the railway station at Riceboro, Ga., for the purpose of becoming passengers on the Seaboard Air Line train going to Savannah and due at Riceboro at 10 minutes after 10 o'clock on said evening. The night was extremely cold, and the waiting room at the station was well heated by a large fire, and the petitioner and her friends went into this room. The train due to arrive at 10:10 o'clock was delayed, and did not arrive until 1:15 o'clock that morning. A little after 9 o'clock the station agent, acting within the scope of his authority in the discharge of his official duties, notified the petitioner and her friends that it was time for him to go home, and he closed the station, and they could not remain in the waiting room. Petitioner informed him that they intended becoming passengers on the train for Savannah, and protested against being turned out into the cold, and begged the agent, if he must close the office, to permit the waiting room to remain open, so they could stay therein and be comfortable while waiting for the arrival of the delayed train. This request he refused, and put the petitioner out into the cold. As there was no other shelter, she was compelled to remain out in the cold from 9 o'clock to 1:15 o'clock a. m. This exposure to cold made her ill. She contracted a severe cold, which compelled her to go to bed, where she suffered greatly from aches and pains in her chest and from annoyance attendant upon the cold. She alleges that under the circumstances above detailed she had a right to remain in the station room until the overdue train arrived; that the defendant owed her the duty to permit her to remain therein, where it was warm and comfortable; and that the company, through its employe, violated its direct duty to her in denying her the legal right to remain in the waiting room, where comfort was already provided, and in compelling her to vacate this room, and to go out in the intense cold, resulting in the personal injuries narrated. She left the waiting room only under the order and demand of the station agent, and after doing so did everything in her power to protect herself from the cold, and in no way consented or contributed to her injuries. She charges that her injuries were directly and proximately due to a breach of duty on the part of the defendant. She sues to recover damages for a breach of the public duty which the railway company owed to her as a passenger, which resulted in the personal injuries to her above set out. She charges, also, that the action of the agent was willful and wanton, in utter disregard of her right, and she also sues to recover punitive damages.
In support of a demurrer the railway company relied upon rule No. 10 of the Railroad Commission of Georgia, of which the courts take judicial cognizance, and which is as follows: It is insisted that under this rule there was no duty upon the railway company to open or heat its waiting room at the hours stated in the petition, when the plaintiff entered the waiting room, and when she was directed to leave by the station agent, for the reason that the train which she intended to take was scheduled to arrive after 10 o'clock p. m. The plaintiff, to overcome the effect of this rule, Insists that it is unreasonable and void, and consequently that the company would not be protected under its provisions; that, even if valid, it is not applicable in the present case, for the reason that the company having heated and opened its waiting room, and having received therein passengers intending to take a train scheduled to arrive after 10 o'clock p. m., the provisions of this rule were waived; that at common law it is the duty of a railway company to provide a comfortable waiting room for its passengers a reasonable length of time before the arrival of its trains; that it was beyond the power of the Railroad Commission of Georgia to change the common law by the promulgation of a rule; and that, irrespective of the rule, the railroad company owed a common-law duty to plaintiff, which it violated, and for which a recovery may be had, since there is no legislative action changing the common-law duty.
Twiggs & Gazan, for plaintiff in error.
Thos. P. Walsh, Jr., and Anderson, Cann & Cann, for defendant in error.
HILL, C. J. (after stating the facts as above). The basic principle of liability for negligent torts is a breach of duty, and In this case the plaintiff sues the railroad company to recover damages for a breach of its public duty as a carrier of passengers. If the railroad company, under the allegations in the petition, owed her any duty which was violated, and without any fault on her part damages thereby resulted to her, she would have a right to recover. Did the railroad company owe her any duty? Learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that at common law it was the duty of railroad companies to provide comfortable waiting rooms for passengers a reasonable length of time before the arrival of trains. Learned counsel for the defendant insists that this was not so at common law; that under the common law railroad companies were under no duty to maintain comfortable waiting rooms at their stations for persons proposing to become passengers.
There is authority for both contentions, the weight of authority being in favor of the latter proposition. This is immaterial, however, for in this state, in so far as cities of 1, 000 inhabitants are concerned, the statute makes it the duty of railroad companies operating passenger trains to have station accommodations for passengers, and to keep them open at least one hour before the arrival of and a half...
To continue reading
Request your trial