Southern Ry. Co. v. Wooley

• Decision Date: 13 January 1909
• Citation: 48 So. 369,158 Ala. 447
• Parties: SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. WOOLEY.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

48 So. 369

158 Ala. 447

SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. WOOLEY.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 13, 1909

Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; H. A. Sharpe, Judge.

Action by Dealy Wooley against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The following charges were refused to the defendant: "(4) Under the evidence, you cannot assert any punitive damages against the defendant. (5) Under the evidence, you cannot find defendant's servant or servants guilty of any wantonness." "(9) The jury should weigh the evidence in the light of their common knowledge and common experience, and if from the evidence, so considered, you conclude that it is improbable that the flagman or other servant of defendant should have given plaintiff the information or direction claimed by her to have been given you would have the right, in your reasonable discretion, to reject the evidence on that point."

Weatherly & Stokeley, for appellant.

Bowman Harsh & Beddow, for appellee.

DENSON J.

This is an action by a passenger against a common carrier to recover damages consequent upon her being left by defendant's servant or agent at a station short of her destination. There are two counts in the complaint. The first counts for recovery upon simple negligence, while the second, as a basis for recovery, after stating the proper premises, avers that "defendant's servant or agent, acting within the line and scope of his authority as such on said train wantonly or intentionally caused plaintiff not to be carried on said train to her destination, well knowing that so to do would likely or probably cause great personal inconvenience and damage, and thereby wantonly or intentionally caused plaintiff to suffer said injuries and damages." The cause was tried on these counts and the general issue. There were verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $250, and therefrom defendant has appealed.

The main questions for consideration arise on charges refused to the defendant, amongst them being the general affirmative charge in respect to each count of the complaint. The plaintiff, a married woman, accompanied by her two children two and three years old, respectively, after providing herself with a ticket entitling her to passage on defendant's train to America Junction, boarded one of defendant's trains at Birmingham, on April 25, 1906, en route to said point, which was a station on defendant's road. Plaintiff had traveled the road only once, and knew nothing about the stations on the road. When the conductor in the course of his duty reached the plaintiff on the train, she gave him her ticket and baggage check, telling him that she desired to get off at America Junction, and that she was not acquainted with the stations along the route. The train carried a car which was to be cut off at Jefferson, an intermediate station, and incorporated in another of defendant's trains which ran between Jefferson and Blossburg.

Plaintiff testified, substantially, that she was riding in the rear car, on the way from Birmingham, and never saw the conductor after he took up her ticket; that the "porter," a white man, who was calling the stations on the train, before the train reached Jefferson, asked her where she was going and that she told him three times she was going to America Junction; that "he explicitly directed me to go into the other car, and stated that the car I was in was going back to Birmingham. I obeyed him, and he helped me carry my bundles in there." When the train reached Jefferson the car in which plaintiff was then traveling was cut out, and the train proceeded on its journey. The car cut out was then coupled into and made a part of the...