St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Yount
| Decision Date | 18 November 1911 |
| Citation | 120 P. 627,30 Okla. 371,1911 OK 480 |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO. v. YOUNT. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The common-law rules of pleading and all distinctions in form required thereunder, and all distinctions between actions at law and suits in equity, are abolished by the statutes of Oklahoma, leaving but one form--a civil action--which consists in a statement, in a proper court, of the facts showing, in plain, ordinary, and concise language, the injury complained of, the redress to which the plaintiff is entitled, the party liable therefor, and concluding with a prayer for the relief sought.
In an action for damages for wrongful expulsion of a passenger from a train, where the plaintiff in his petition has placed himself clearly within the rules of procedure (chapter 87 Snyder's Comp. Laws of Okla.; chapter 66, S. 1893), he cannot be precluded from recovery for humiliation and wounded feelings because of a doubt as to whether his suit was an action ex contractu or ex delicto.
In an action for damages from being wrongfully expelled from a passenger train, where the passenger is without fault, and where recovery is warranted by the evidence, he may recover a reasonable amount for insult, injured feelings, and humiliation, in connection with the actual expense incurred by the delay, although the conductor who ejected him used no force or violence, and was without fault in the premises.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2. Error from District Court, Comanche County; J. T. Johnson, Judge.
Action by Paul Yount against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
In an action for damages for expulsion from a train, where recovery is warranted by the evidence, plaintiff may recover for insult, injured feelings, and humiliation, together with the actual expense, though the conductor used no violence, and was without fault.
This action was begun in the district court of Comanche county on September 28, 1907, by Paul Yount against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company for damages in the sum of $1,041.98, by reason of being ejected from a passenger train on said railroad; and thereafter, on September 25, 1908, in a jury trial, he recovered judgment in the sum of $500, from which judgment the defendant company appeals.
The petition in error contains the following assignments: First. The verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and is contrary to law. Second. The court erred in his instructions given to the jury. Third. The court erred in refusing to give instructions numbered 1 to 4, and each of them, requested by plaintiff in error. Fourth. Error in the assessment of the amount of recovery; the same being too large. Fifth. Errors of law occurring at the trial, and duly excepted to by plaintiff in error at the time. Sixth. The court erred in overruling the motion of plaintiff in error for a new trial.
The evidence discloses that on July 2, 1907, Paul Yount and his brother Isom (Pete) Yount each purchased round trip tickets from Lawton, Okla., to St. Louis, Mo., from the defendant company's agent at Lawton; the tickets costing $27.85 each, to be good until October 28, 1907. The plaintiff below in company with his brother Pete, took the train at Lawton on the day the tickets were purchased, and from there went to St. Louis. On their going trip, plaintiff's ticket was punched by the conductors on the different divisions along the road. The plaintiff had been instructed by the agent at Lawton to go to the agent at St. Louis and have his ticket validated before he took the train for the return trip; the plaintiff having, after he reached St. Louis on the going trip, visited his relatives in Indiana, traveling over a different road, and not using the same ticket. On his return from Indiana to St. Louis, he went to the agent at St. Louis, and had his ticket validated, as per instructions and according to the company's rules, preparatory for his return from St. Louis to Lawton. This was about July 17th. After the train pulled out of St. Louis, and before reaching the next station, the conductor came around to take up the tickets. He took plaintiff's ticket first--that is, before looking at his brother's ticket--and informed plaintiff that it was "no good," and remarked, "On the bum"; whereupon Pete Yount, his brother, told the conductor that his was just like his brother's, and that they got them the same time. The conductor then took Pete's ticket, accepted it as good, and punched it. Pete called the conductor's attention to some figures on the back, which figures had been made by the agent at Lawton, and asked the conductor to wire to the agent at Lawton and ask him if he and his brother had not bought tickets there. This the conductor refused to do. He told the plaintiff that he would have to get off at the next station or pay his fare, giving no further explanation, nor making any further remark than, "On the bum." It is not shown clearly whether this remark was meant for the ticket or passenger.
The next station was the town of Pacific, Mo., and just before reaching the station the conductor came through, put his hand on plaintiff's shoulder, and informed him that he would have to get off at this station, or pay his fare. The conductor gave no explanation to plaintiff of his conduct, or why he refused the ticket, or wherein the ticket showed to be not good, but simply informed him that he would have to get off the train, or pay his fare. The plaintiff did not have money enough to pay for another ticket from there to Lawton; nor did he and his brother both have sufficient money to buy another ticket.
The conductor remained with him, or close to him, until the train stopped at the depot in the town of Pacific. It being suggested to plaintiff by his brother that he had better get off than have a fight, plaintiff got off on the platform; the conductor and his brother following out on the platform; his brother telling plaintiff to remain there at Pacific until he reached Lawton, and he would have the agent wire transportation back. Plaintiff remained at this place about three days before he received transportation from his brother at Lawton. In the meantime he had done some little work shoveling coal at a mill. While he remained at Pacific, he was out in cash something like $4, and the ticket from Pacific to Lawton cost him $17.98. In addition to this outlay, he claimed, in his petition and in his testimony, to have been damaged in the sum of $7 to $10 per day while detained at Pacific in loss of time, and to have been damaged in the sum of $1,000 from humiliation, mental suffering, and disgrace from being ejected from the train in the presence of other passengers. The fact also appears that the conductor did not assault him, or make any threats of assault, used no violence, nor showed any malice, but simply informed him that he would have to get off the train, or pay his fare. It further appeared that there were some marks or punches on the ticket which appeared to the conductor in question to have been made by some other conductor over the same division, this being the reason assigned by the conductor in his testimony for not accepting the ticket. These are the material facts, and about all the material facts in the case.
W. F. Evans, E. T. Miller, and R. A. Kleinschmidt, for plaintiff in error.
Fred R. Ellis, for defendant in error.
HARRISON, C. (after stating the facts as above).
To go at once into an analysis of the propositions involved herein, the argument of counsel for plaintiff in error resolves itself into this position: That this is an action ex contractu and not ex delicto; but if treated as an action in tort, then the verdict is not supported by the evidence, and if as an action on contract, then the measure of damages is the actual expense incurred for board, lodging, and loss of time occasioned by the delay and the cost of another ticket. Therefore let us first determine the form of action, then determine whether or not the verdict is excessive.
To determine the form of the action, we will look to the statutes, as aided by the common law, and as construed by the courts. To determine whether the verdict is excessive, we will look to the decisions of the courts, as applied to similar conditions...
To continue reading
Request your trial