St Louis Ry Co v. Williams
Decision Date | 08 December 1919 |
Docket Number | No. 66,66 |
Citation | 40 S.Ct. 71,64 L.Ed. 139,251 U.S. 63 |
Parties | ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. v. WILLIAMS et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs.
Robert E. Wiley
and Edgar B. Kinsworthy, both of Little Rock, Ark., for plaintiff in error.
By a statute of Arkansas, regulating rates for the transportation of passengers between points within the state any railroad company that demands or collects a greater compensation than the statute prescribes is subjected 'for every such offense' to a penalty of 'not less than fifty dollars nor more than three hundred dollars and costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee,' and the aggrieved passenger is given a right to recover the same in a civil action. Act April 4, 1887 (Laws 1887, p. 227; Kirby's Digest, 1904, § 6620); Act March 4, 1915 (Laws 1915, p. 365; Kirby & Castle's Digest, 1916, § 8094).
In June, 1915, a company operating a line of railroad within the state demanded and collected 66 cents more than the prescribed fare from each of two sisters carried over part of its line when returning to their home from a school commencement elsewhere in the state; and in suits separately brought for the purpose, and afterwards consolidated, these passengers obtained judgments against the company for the overcharge, a penalty of seventy-five dollars and costs of suit, including an attorney's fee of twenty-five dollars. The company appealed, asserting that the provision for the penalty was repugnant to the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; but the Supreme Court of the state sustained the provision and affirmed the judgments. 131 Ark. 442, 199 S. W. 376. To obtain a review of that decision the company prosecutes this writ of error.
The grounds upon which the provision is said to contravene due process of law are, first, that the penalty is 'so severe as to deprive the carrier of the right to resort to the courts to test the validity' of the rate prescribed, and, second, that the penalty is 'arbitrary and unreasonable, and not proportionate to the actual damages sustained.'
It is true that the imposition of severe penalties as a means of enforcing a rate, such as was prescribed in this instance, is in contravention of due process of law, where no adequate opportunity is afforded the carrier for safely testing, in an appropriate judicial proceeding, the validity of the rate—that is, whether it is confiscatory or otherwise before any liability for the penalties attaches. The reasons why this is so are set forth fully and plainly in several recent decisions and need not be repeated now. Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 147, 28 Sup. Ct. 441, 52 L. Ed. 714, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 932, 14 Ann. Cas. 764; Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co., 212 U. S. 19, 53, 29 Sup. Ct. 192, 53 L. Ed. 382, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1134, 15 Ann. Cas. 1034; Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Nebraska, 217 U. S. 196, 207, 208, 30 Sup. Ct. 461, 54 L. Ed. 727, 18 Ann. Cas. 989; Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Tucker, 230 U. S. 340, 33 Sup. Ct. 961, 57 L. Ed. 1507: Wadley Southern Ry. Co. v. Georgia, 235 U. S. 651, 659, et seq., 35 Sup. Ct. 214, 59 L. Ed. 405.
And it also is true that where such an opportunity is afforded and the rate is adjudged valid, or the carrier fails to avail itself of the opportunity, it then is admissible, so far as due process of law is concerned, for the state to enforce adherence to the rate by imposing substantial penalties for deviations from it. Wadley Southern Ry. Co. v. Georgia, supra, 235 U. S. p. 667 et seq., 35 Sup. Ct. 214, 59 L. Ed. 405; Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Texas, 246 U. S. 58, 62, 38 Sup. Ct. 236, 62 L. Ed. 574.
Here it does not appear that the carrier had not been afforded an adequate opportunity for safely testing the validity of the rate, or that its deviation therefrom proceeded from any belief that the rate was invalid. On the contrary, it is practically conceded—and we judicially know—that if the carrier really regarded the rate as confiscatory, the way was open to secure a determination of that question by a suit in equity against the Railroad Commission of the state, during the pendency of which the operation of the penalty provision could have been suspended by injunction. Wadley Southern Ry. Co. v. Georgia, supra. See, also, Allen v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., 230 U. S. 553, 33 Sup. Ct. 1030, 57 L. Ed. 1625; Rowland v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., 244 U. S. 106, 37 Sup. Ct. 577, 61 L. Ed. 1022; St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. McKnight, 244 U. S. 368, 37 Sup. Ct. 611, 61 L. Ed. 1200. And the record shows that at the trial the carrier not only did not raise any question about the correct fare, but proposed and secured an instruction to the jury wherein the prescribed rate was recognized as controlling.
It therefore is plain that the first branch of the company's contention...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sony Music Entm't v. Cox Commc'ns, Inc.
...damages award, the parties agree that St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Williams governs the constitutional inquiry here.26 251 U.S. 63, 40 S.Ct. 71, 64 L.Ed. 139 (1919). As established in Williams , even if primarily intended to punish the defendant and paid directly to a private party, a st......
-
Texas Co. v. Dyer, Motor Vehicle Com'r
... ... Galveston Elec. Co., 136 S.W. 1186; Commonwealth v ... Coal & Iron Co., 23 A. 809; Hoff v. Northwestern El ... Co., 139 N.W. 153; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v ... Houck, 97 S.W. 953; Rambeck v. LaBree, 194 N.W ... 743; Tonnar v. Wade, 153 Miss. 722 ... The ... statute under ... Co. v ... Fowler, 67 L.Ed. 115; Southwestern T. & T. Co. v ... Danaher, 59 L.Ed. 1419; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v ... Williams, 64 L.Ed. 139; Life Ins. Co. v. McRae, ... 78 L.Ed. 987; Beckler Produce Co. v. Railway ... Express, 246 S.W. 1; Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 ... N.W ... ...
-
Woodland Private Study Group v. State of NJ
...v. United States, 368 U.S. 208, 226-27, 82 S.Ct. 289, 299-300, 7 L.Ed.2d 240 (1961); St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Williams, 251 U.S. 63, 65, 40 S.Ct. 71, 72, 64 L.Ed. 139 (1919). In the case at bar, the court is faced with the question of the adequacy of a claim agains......
-
BMW of North America Inc. v. Gore
...a defendant should reflect "the enormity of his offense." Day v. Woodworth, 13 How. 363, 371 (1852). See also St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Williams, 251 U. S. 63, 66-67 (1919) (punitive award may not be "wholly disproportioned to the offense"); Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc. v. ......
-
Emerging Issues In Statutory Damages
...Equip. Corp. v. Banner Pers. Serv., Inc., 545 F. Supp. 2d 768, 777 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (citing St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 251 U.S. 63, 66 (1919)). In 1974, Congress amended 15 U.S.C. § 1640 (TILA) to strike an appropriate balance between the rights of claimants to recovery i......
-
Ninth Circuit Issues Two Significant TCPA Decisions Concerning Mixed-Use Cellphones And Statutory Damages Awards
...and oppressive" that it violated its due process rights. Citing the Supreme Court decision St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 251 U.S. 63, 67 (1919), the Ninth Circuit held that even where the per violation penalty is constitutional, the aggregated statutory damages are subject to c......
-
First Circuit Affirms $675,000 Award Against Joel Tenenbaum: Gore Test Does Not Apply To Statutory Damages Under Copyright Act
...suggested that the district court reevaluate the award based on a different test set forth in St. Louis, I.M. & S Ry. Co. v. Williams, 251 U.S. 63 (1919). The Williams test, which is more plaintiff-friendly than Gore, provides that an award of statutory damages violates due process only......
-
Two Courts Address Constitutional Limits On Copyright Statutory Damages
...Both the plaintiff and the United States argued that an earlier U.S. Supreme Court case, St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 251 U.S. 63, 67 (1919), rather than Gore, was the controlling law. The matter was remanded for the trial court to consider the issue of Capitol Records Inc.......
-
Damages in Dissonance: The 'Shocking' Penalty for Illegal Music File-Sharing
...226 Id. at 107 (citing Thomas-Rasset, 680 F. Supp. 2d at 1056). 227 Id. (citing Thomas-Rasset, 680 F. Supp. 2d at 1056–57). 228 Id. 229 251 U.S. 63 (1919). 230 517 U.S. 559 (1996). 231 538 U.S. 408 (2003). 232 St. Louis, 251 U.S. at 63. 233 Id. at 63–64. 234 Id. at 64. 235 Id. 236 Id. 237 I......
-
State farm and punitive damages: call the jury back.
...part "as compensation of the claimant for the trouble and expense of the suit." Id. at 77-78. St. Louis, I.M. & S.R. Co. v. Williams, 251 U.S. 63 (1919) upheld a statutory penalty of $75 plus costs of suit against the railroad for each of two schoolgirls who were overcharged in their fa......
-
CHAPTER 15
...340, 351 (1913); Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Danaher, 238 U.S. 482, 491 (1915); St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Williams, 251 U.S. 63, 67 (1919). The constitutional status of punitive damages, therefore, is not an issue that is new to this Court or unanticipated by it. Challen......
-
Trial Practice and Procedure - John O'shea Sullivan and Ashby L. Kent
...217. Id. 218. Id. 219. Id. (quoting Grimes, 552 F. Supp. 2d at 1308). 220. Id. (citing St. Louis, Iron Mountain & S. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 251 U.S. 63 (1919)). 221. Id. at 1312-13. 222. Id. at 1313. 223. Id. 224. Id. (citing 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681n(a)). 225. Id. 226. Id. 227. Id. 228. Id. 229. ......