Yazoo & M.V.R. Co. v. Walls

• Decision Date: 06 December 1915
• Docket Number: 17138
• Citation: 70 So. 349,110 Miss. 256
• Parties: YAZOO & M.V.R. Co. v. WALLS
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

70 So. 349

110 Miss. 256

YAZOO & M.V.R. Co. v. WALLS

No. 17138

Supreme Court of Mississippi

December 6, 1915

APPEAL from the circuit court of Sharkey county. HON. H. C. MOUNGER Judge.

Suit by Henry Walls against the Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

This is an appeal from a judgment against appellant for two thousand and five hundred dollars damages, alleged to have been sustained by appellee as the result of a fall from a trestle on appellant's road after having been wrongfully ejected from one of its passenger trains. On January 9, 1913 appellee purchased from appellant's agent a ticket from Duncan to Hardee, a station on appellant's line south of Duncan. This ticket reads as follows:

"Y. & M. V. Railroad Company

One Passage

Duncan Miss., to Hardee, Miss.

Good one day from date of sale for continuous trip via short line on train scheduled to stop at destination; otherwise passenger must transfer to local train."

A few minutes after appellee purchased this ticket he boarded one of appellant's south-bound passenger trains, not scheduled to stop at Hardee; its stop nearest thereto before reaching Hardee being Rolling Fork. Appellee did not read his ticket, nor did he know that the train would not stop at Hardee. The ticket was handed by appellee to the conductor of the train shortly after leaving Duncan, who punched it and handed it back to him. According to the testimony for appellant, the conductor, when he returned appellee's ticket, informed him that the train would not stop at Hardee and that he would have to leave it at Rolling Fork, and continue his journey on another train, which would pass Rolling Fork the next morning. This was denied by appellee, who stated that the conductor returned him his ticket without comment. After passing Rolling Fork the conductor informed appellee that the train would not stop at Hardee; that if he remained on the train he would have to go through to Vicksburg, the next regular stop of the train, and pay the sum of fifty-seven cents, the fare from Hardee to that point. Appellee, having no money, was unable to pay this additional fare, whereupon he was ejected from the train. This occurred, according to the testimony of appellee, about twelve o'clock on a dark, rainy night, between Egremont and Cary (which are stated in the brief of counsel for appellant to be "four and eight miles, respectively, below Rolling Fork") in a field, the size of which does not appear, surrounded by woods and hedges. According to the testimony of appellant, the ejection occurred about three-quarters of a mile south of Rolling Fork, and it was not raining at the time, though it had been earlier in the night. After appellee was put off the train he walked down the track about forty or fifty yards, and either stepped off or fell through a trestle, which he failed to see and did not know was there. He was rendered unconscious by this fall, and remained so for some time. About three or four o'clock in the morning he succeeded in reaching a house about four hundred or five hundred yards from this trestle, and by the occupant thereof was cared for and carried the next day to Cary, and from there he went to Vicksburg, where he was treated for his injuries. According to his testimony he suffered considerably and was not well at the time of the trial. His physician corroborated him as to the suffering, and stated that his body had bruises on it the day after the injury; that one of his kidneys was lacerated, and while he then--at the time of the trial--appeared to be free from pain, his injury was permanent.

The second and third instructions, requested by appellant, and refused by the trial court, and which are referred to in the opinion, are as follows:

"No. 2. The court instructs the jury that the mere fact that plaintiff held a ticket from Duncan to Hardee, and got aboard train No. 15 unless some special contract is shown whereby he was entitled to be carried on said train No. 15, did not entitle him to ride to Hardee on said train No. 15 on the night in question in this case, and the jury will find a verdict for the defendant.

"No. 3. The court instructs the jury that the railroad company has a right to establish a schedule whereby fast trains do not stop at all stations, and it makes no difference that the holder of a ticket, at the time he purchases it, is not aware that the particular train in question in this case does not stop at his station; and unless the jury in this case believe from the evidence that the agent at Duncan, in the scope of his authority, made a special contract, other than as shown by the ticket in evidence in this case, with the plaintiff, to stop the train at Hardee, you will find a verdict for the defendant."

The fifth instruction, granted at the request of the appellant, is as follows:

"No. 5. The court instructs the jury that if you believe from the evidence that Conductor Kagler told the plaintiff, before he reached Rolling Fork, that he would have to get off and change trains, and could not go to Hardee on train No. 15, the train in question, then the plaintiff had no right to stay on the train, and you must find a Verdict for the defendant."

The first instruction, granted at the request of the appellee, is set out in the dissenting opinion.

Affirmed.

Mayes & Mayes, for appellant.

It is now too well settled to admit of argument that it is the duty of a passenger to inform himself of the movements of trains before boarding one; he must ascertain when, how and where he can go under the provisions of his ticket and the regulations of the carrier. And if he fails so to do, and makes a mistake uninduced by the carrier, he is without remedy for being ejected from the train upon which he has no right to ride, under the provisions of his ticket, or the regulations of the carrier. Dietrick v. Penn. R. Co., 71 Pa. St. 432.

"It is also well settled that one who buys a ticket is bound to inform himself of the rules and regulations of the company governing the transit and conduct of its trains. Thus, he must ascertain the train in which he is to go, its stopping stations, his right to get off and get on, to resume his trips, etc." Randolph v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 53 Ill. 510; Atchison, etc. R. Co. v. Gants, 38 Kan. 608.

"The law is well settled that, in the absence of statutory provisions to the contrary, a railroad company may adopt a regulation that a certain train or trains of passenger cars running regularly on its road shall not stop at designated stations or places; and it is the duty of a person about to take passage on a railroad train to inform himself when, where and how he can go or stop, according to the regulations of the company (citations). In this state there is no statutory provision to the contrary, and as the train upon which Gants took passage was not to stop, under the regulations of the company, until it reached Florence, the conductor had the right, after the train started, to stop the train and require Gants to leave it, if he refused to pay the fare which, in addition to the sum paid for his ticket; would have entitled him to ride to Florence" (Citations.). See Also: Railroad Co. v. Swarthout, 67 Ind. 567; McRae v. Railroad Co., 88 N. Car. 526; Schiffler v. Railroad Co., 65 Am. St. Rep. 35, and note; Johnson v. Railroad, 46 N.H. 213; Railroad Co. v. Bartram, 11 Ohio St. 457; Beauchamp v. Railroad, 56 Tex. 239; Carter v. Railroad Co., 75 S.C. 355; Duling v. Railroad Co., 66 Md. 120; Logan v. Railroad Co., 77 Mo. 663; Plott v. Railroad Co., 63 Wis. 511; Railroad Co. v. Miles (Ky), 37 S.W. 486; Railroad Co. v. Bell (Texas), 87 S.W. 730; Scott v. Railroad Co., 144 Ind. 125; Railway Co. v. Lightcap, 7 Ind.App. 249; Note 2 Am. & Eng. Ann., p. 1080. See, also, opinion of GRAHAM, C. J., in margin of reported case, page 1078.

Later cases are collected in a note to Louisville etc. R. Co. v. Scott, Anno. Cas., 1912 C., page 552, second column.

No. 2. The court instructs the jury that the mere fact that plaintiff held a ticket from Duncan to Hardee and got aboard train No. 15, unless some special contract is shown whereby he was entitled to be carried on said train, No. 15, did not entitle him to ride to Hardee on said train No. 15 on the night in question in this case and the jury will find a verdict for the defendant."

"No. 3. The court instructs the jury that the railroad company has a right to establish a schedule whereby fast trains do not stop at all stations, and it makes no difference that the holder of a ticket at the time he purchases it is not aware that the particular train in question in this case does not stop at his station, and unless the jury in this case believe from the evidence that the agent at Duncan in the scope of his authority made a special contract other than as shown by the ticket in evidence in this case with the plaintiff to stop said train at Hardee, you will find a verdict for the defendant."

These instructions correctly announce the law, and their refusal was manifestly reversible error. Authorities supra. See, also Nazum v. Pittsburg, etc. R. Co., 50 Ind. 141, infra; Wells v. Railroad Co., 67 Miss. 24; Rodgers v. Railroad Co., 80 Miss. 200.

At the request of appellee, the Court granted the following instructions: Instructions given for plaintiff.

"The court instructs the jury that if they believe from the evidence that plaintiff bought a ticket at Duncan Mississippi, on the 9th day of January, 1913, entitling him to transportation to Hardee, Mississippi, a short while before the arrival of one of defendant's passenger trains, going from Duncan to Hardee, and that plaintiff thereupon took passage on the said passenger train of the defendant Company, en...