Willard v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 December 1911
• Citation: 133 N.W. 465,116 Minn. 183
• Parties: WILLARD v. ST. PAUL CITY RY. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

116 Minn. 183

133 N.W. 465

WILLARD

v.ST. PAUL CITY RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 8, 1911.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; William Louis Kelly, Judge.

Action by Joseph C. Willard against the St. Paul City Railway Company. From an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding a verdict for plaintiff or for a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

The plaintiff was a passenger on the car of the defendant, but by the failure of the conductor to call the streets he was carried past his destination. He rode around the loop, for the purpose of riding back to his destination. While he was riding on the car on his return trip, the conductor requested him to pay his fare or get off the car. He refused to do either, and in forcibly resisting the attempt of the trainmen to eject him he was injured. Held, the plaintiff had no right, at the time he was ejected, to ride on the car without paying the fare, and, upon his refusal to pay or get off, it was the right and duty of the trainmen to put him off, provided they used only such reasonable force as was necessary.

Even if the plaintiff's claim to be carried back to his destination had been right, it was his duty peaceably to have left the car when ordered so to do. If he was in the right, his cause of action was complete when he was ordered to leave the car, and public order and the safety and comfort of the passengers forbade a decision of the justice of his claim by wager of battle.

The question whether the force used by the trainmen was excessive was made a question of fact by the evidence, which is sufficient to sustain a verdict for the plaintiff.

The trial court committed no reversible error in its rulings as to the admission of evidence. The damages are not excessive. W. D. Dwyer, for appellant.

Wondra & Helm, for respondent.

START, C. J.

The plaintiff, a strong man weighing 178 pounds before his injury, was, on August 27, 1910, at about 10:30 o'clock p. m. on one of the cars of the defendant which was going up Wabasha street in the city of St. Paul. When the car was nearing the State Capitol, the conductor of the car requested the plaintiff to pay his fare. He refused so to do for the reason, as he then claimed, that he boarded the car at Minneapolis, paid his fare to St. Paul, and seasonably informed the conductor that he wished to get off at Avon street; that the conductor failed to call that street, whereby, without fault on his part, he was carried past his destination. He then rode around the loop and claimed the right to be carried back to Avon street without payment of another fare. The conductor insisted that he pay his fare or get off the car. He refused to do either. The conductor then called the motorman, and together they attempted to put the plaintiff off the car. He forcibly resisted them to the full extent of his physical powers. He was finally forced-or, as he testified, thrown-from the car, striking the ground, whereby he was seriously injured. This is an action to recover from the defendant damages for injuries so sustained.

The trial court correctly instructed the jury to the effect that the plaintiff, at the time he was ejected from the car, had no right to ride on the car without paying the fare demanded by the conductor, and that it was the right and duty of the conductor to put him off the car upon his refusal to pay the fare, provided he used only such reasonable force as was necessary to remove him therefrom, and, further, that if, in ejecting him from the car, the trainmen used more force than was reasonably necessary, under the circumstances as disclosed by the evidence, which was the direct cause of his injury, the defendant would be liable therefor, but, if no greater force was used than was reasonably necessary to overcome the plaintiff's resistance and to eject him from the car, he could not recover. The jury found for the plaintiff on this issue, and returned a verdict for $1,500 damages. The defendant appealed from an order denying...