The Kansas City v. Little
Decision Date | 07 March 1903 |
Docket Number | 12,977 |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Parties | THE KANSAS CITY, FORT SCOTT & MEMPHIS RAILROAD COMPANY v. JOHN T. LITTLE |
Decided January, 1903.
Error from Johnson district court; JOHN T. BURRIS, judge.
STATEMENT.
DEFENDANT in error, desiring to go from Olathe to Hillsdale, a station about twenty miles south, on the railroad of plaintiff in error, inquired of the ticket agent in charge of the station at Olathe at what time he could obtain a train, and was told that there would be a freight-train leaving that point at 6:35 P. M. This was train No. 27. Soon after six o'clock he went to the ticket office at Olathe, purchased his ticket and, as a train pulled into the station, the agent said to Mr. Little: "The train is now coming." He proceeded to board the caboose, and, as he did so, told the man in charge that he wanted to go to Hillsdale, and this man, who afterward turned out to be rear brakeman, said: "That is all right; this train takes the place of 27 to-night, and carries passengers." Thereupon Mr. Little took his seat in the caboose, and after the train had started the brakeman took up his ticket, as also that of another passenger who was his companion. The train stopped at Ocheltree, the first station, and also at Springhill, the second station. Upon arrival at Springhill, the conductor came into the car for the first time, and inquired of Mr. Little in a boisterous manner: Upon being ordered off the car he obeyed. This was about nine o'clock at night, at a point about one-fourth of a mile from the station, on a steep embankment. After he had left the car and gone some distance, the brakeman came running after him and tendered back his ticket which he refused to accept. Upon the trial the jury returned a general verdict in behalf of the plaintiff for $ 225.58 and at the same time returned their special findings, which were as follows:
The plaintiff in error claims that the train which plaintiff boarded was not No. 27, which carried passengers, but No. 35, upon which passengers were not allowed to ride, and that the conductor could not stop the train at Hillsdale without disobeying his orders. Judgment was rendered on the general verdict, and a motion for a new trial was overruled.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. RAILROADS -- Injury to Passenger -- Representations of Employees. A passenger going upon a railroad-train has a right to rely on the representations of a local ticket agent, and on those of the railroad company's agent in charge thereof, that such train will stop at a certain place to which he has purchased a ticket and desires to ride, and the company will be liable to such passenger in damages, if he be compelled to leave the train before arriving at his destination because, by the general rules of the company, unknown to the passenger, such train is not scheduled to stop at such station.
2. RAILROADS -- Exemplary Damages. Exemplary or punitive damages may be awarded, where a wrong has in it the element of negligence which is gross or wanton or wilfully oppressive.
3. RAILROADS -- Humiliation and Disgrace. An indignity need not be done to one in the presence of a number of people in order to entitle the person wronged to recover damages for the humiliation and disgrace suffered.
Pratt, Dana & Black, for plaintiff in error.
J. P. Hindman, and Parker & Hamilton, for defendant in error.
OPINION
It is claimed that the railroad company is not liable for any sum whatever, because the plaintiff was riding on a train which under the rules of the company, was not permitted to stop at Hillsdale, or even carry passengers at all, and that the conductor was required to obey the regulations of the company in running its trains; that the company has the right to make reasonable rules for the running of its trains and the carrying of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Forrester v. Southern Pac. Co.
... ... engine in Lincoln county, and left no property except a gold ... watch and ring and a little money on his person, and any ... right of action for damages for his alleged wrongful death ... Joy, 173 U.S. 226, 19 S.Ct. 387, 43 L.Ed ... In ... Webber v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 97 F. 140, 38 C. C ... A. 79, it was held that an action for personal injuries did ... considering the objection to the allowance of punitive ... damages, the Supreme Court of Kansas, in Cady v ... Case, 45 Kan. 733, 26 P. 448, said: "The principal ... question discussed in ... ...
-
Southern Pacific Co. v. Boyce
... ... 109 for ... the purpose of going to that city; that when said train ... reached a point about one-half mile northwesterly of Ogilby, ... 545; Nashville Street Ry. v. Griffin, 104 ... Tenn. 81, 49 L.R.A. 451, 57 S.W. 153; Kansas City, Ft ... Scott & Memphis R.R. Co. v. Little, 66 Kan ... 378, 97 Am. St. Rep. 376, 61 ... ...
-
Watkins v. Layton
...whom exemplary or punitive damages have been recognized by this court in a tort action is found in Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. Little, 66 Kan. 378, 71 P. 820, 61 L.R.A. 122. There a passenger was compelled to leave a train before arriving at his destination because under company rule......
-
Lonergan v. William Small & Co.
...part of the conductor, that there might be a recovery of exemplary damages. (S. K. Rly. Co. v. Rice, 38 Kan. 398. See, also, Railroad Co. v. Little, 66 Kan. 378.) In of the instructions the trial court gave the general rule that mental suffering unaccompanied by physical injury is not a gro......