St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Harper

• Decision Date: 23 March 1901
• Citation: 61 S.W. 911,69 Ark. 186
• Parties: ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. HARPER
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

61 S.W. 911

69 Ark. 186

ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. HARPER

Supreme Court of Arkansas

March 23, 1901

Appeal from Columbia Circuit Court, CHAS. W. SMITH, Judge.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

James B. Harper got on the "Cannon Ball" passenger train on defendant's railroad at McNeil for the purpose of going to Milner, another station on defendant's road. Milner was not one of the stations at which that train stopped, and when Harper offered a ticket to Milner he was informed of this fact by the conductor, and told that he must pay fifteen cents more, and go on to Stephens; that being the next stopping place for that train. Harper refused to pay and was thereupon ejected from the train at a point about a mile and a half from the station. He brought this action for being put off at a place other than a usual stopping place for trains. There was a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $ 125, but the court required a remittitur of $ 100, which having been done, the court gave judgment for the remaining $ 25, and costs against defendant. From this judgment defendant appealed.

Judgment affirmed.

Sam H West and Jno. T. Sifford, for appellant.

Sand. & H. Dig., § 6192, applies only passengers who refuse to pay fare. 49 Ark. 358. Appellee was not a "passenger," within the meaning of that statute and appellant did not owe him the measure of care due a passenger. Ray, Neg. Imp. Duties, 4; 2 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 742; 29 S.W. 713; Sh. & Redf. Neg. § 448; Patt. Ry. Law, §§ 210-214; 29 S.W. 367; 29 S.W. 1106; 40 Ind. 37; 18 S.W. 589; 9 Am. & Eng. Ry. Cas., 307; Rorer, Railroads, 984; 67 F. 522; 29 S.W. 1106.

OPINION

RIDDICK, J., (after stating the facts).

This is an action for damages alleged to have been caused the plaintiff by being ejected from one of defendant's passenger trains. Our statute provides that "if any passenger shall refuse to pay his fare or toll, it shall be lawful for the conductor of the train and the servants of the corporation to put him out of the cars at any usual stopping place the conductor shall select." Sand. & H. Dig., § 6192.

Counsel for the defendant company contend that this statute does not apply here, for the reason that the plaintiff knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care could have known, that the train which he entered did not stop at Milner, and that, as he refused to pay his fare to any station at which the train did stop, he was not a passenger. It is doubtless true that one who enters a railway train, and afterwards wrongfully and persistently refuses to pay his fare, is not entitled to the high degree of care which the law exacts of railroads for the protection of passengers. Within the meaning of the rules requiring such care, it has been often held that such a person is not a passenger. Condran v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 67 F. 522; 2 Wood, Railroads (Minor's Ed.), 1213; 5 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.), 496, and cases cited.

We do not controvert the soundness of these decisions, but it is evident that the reasons upon which they are based do not apply here; for the object of this statute was to prevent railroad companies from ejecting a passenger for refusal to pay fare at other than a usual stopping place. If those refusing to pay fare are not passengers, within the meaning of this act, then the statute can have no application, and is meaningless. It is therefore very evident, we think, that the refusal to...