Va. Ry. & Power Co v. O'flaherty

• Decision Date: 16 March 1916
• Citation: 88 S.E. 312
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: VIRGINIA RY. & POWER CO. v. O'FLAHERTY.

88 S.E. 312

VIRGINIA RY. & POWER CO.

v.O'FLAHERTY.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

March 16, 1916.

Rehearing Denied April 3, 1916.

Error to Law and Equity Court of City of Richmond.

Action by D. C. O'Flaherty against the Virginia Railway & Power Company. I^rom a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Reversed.

H. W. Anderson, A. B. Guigon, and Thos. P. Bryan, all of Richmond, for plaintiff in error.

Gunn & Mathews, M. J. Fulton, and R. E. Byrd, all of Richmond, for defendant in error.

WHITTLE, J. This writ of error brings to our attention a judgment of the law and equity court of the city of Richmond awarding defendant in error $500 damages in an action for false imprisonment.

By consent of parties a jury was waived, and all matters of law and fact were submitted to the court. The trial court's finding of essential facts discloses this situation: Plaintiff below boarded a Broad and Mainstreet "pay-as-you-enter" car of defendant as an intending passenger for transportation from the eastern to the western part of the city of Richmond. There is a public regulation of defendant which requires an intending passenger, upon entering the car, personally to put his fare in a till or box maintained on the rear platform, and also a rule that forbids conductors, under any circumstances, on pain of dismissal, to accept fares, and enjoins upon them the duty of requiring passengers to deposit the same in the box. On the instant occasion plaintiff entered the car without depositing his fare, and when his attention was called to the omisson by the conductor he tendered him a ticket, but refused to deposit it in the box. Thereupon the conductor insisted that he should either comply with the rule or leave the car; and, upon his repeated refusal to do either, the conductor, exercising his authority as a policeman or conservator of the public peace, arrested plaintiff and detained him on the car until it arrived at the reservoir, the western terminus of the line, when he was turned over to the city authorities and admitted to bail.

The trial court in its opinion said: "The evidence shows that both the conductor and the motorman exercised their rather disagreeable duties in a polite and courteous manner, and acted in good faith and without malice in what they did, and that, while there was some controversy between the plaintiff and the conductor, there was nothing in the nature of actual disorder upon the car. * * * "

The court correctly held:

"That the rule of the defendant requiring a passenger to deposit his fare (or ticket) in the box is a reasonable regulation, and one with which the passenger should comply. The burden imposed upon the passenger of stepping back to the platform and personally putting his fare in the box, when he has taken his seat without doing so, is very slight, and taken in connection with the purposes of a pay-as-you-enter car, and with the necessity of rendering street car traffic in crowded cities as efficient as practicable for the general public, is not an unreasonable requirement. * * * This rule in question here was a public regulation of the company of which the plaintiff had knowledge. By the refusal of the plaintiff to pay his fare in tho manner required by this regulation he placed himself in default. Upon his refusal so to pay, or to leave the car, the company by its agents, the conductor and the motorman, acquired the right to eject him from the car."

The authorities fully sustain the above statement of the law.

"It is well-settled law that a carrier has a right to make reasonable rules and regulations for the conduct of its affairs, and that they are binding upon the passengers and the public dealing with the carrier when brought to their notice. * * * The reasonableness of the rules and regulations of a railroad company is a question of law addressed to the courts." N. & W. Ry. Co. v. Wysor, 82 Va. 250, at pages 260, 261; Va. & S. W. Ry. v. Hill. 105 Va. 738, 54 S. E. 872. 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 899; N. & W. Ry. Co. v. Brame, 109 Va. 422, 430, 63 S. E. 1018.

"It is within the power of the company to make and enforce a reasonable rule as to the time, place, and manner of payment of fares." Knoxville Traction Co. v. Wilkerson, 117 Tenn. 482, 99 S. W. 992, 9 It R. A. (N. S.) 579, 10 Ann. Cas. 641; Nellis on Street Railways (2d Ed.) § 264.

There are numerous cases which uphold the reasonableness of rules similar to the one under consideration and the duty of the passenger to comply with them,...