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

• Decision Date: 26 March 1917
• Docket Number: 18827
• Citation: 74 So. 693,113 Miss. 881
• Parties: YAZOO & M. V. R. CO. v. DUKE
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

74 So. 693

113 Miss. 881

YAZOO & M. V. R. CO. v. DUKE

No. 18827

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 26, 1917

Division A

APPEAL from the circuit court of Carrol county, HON. H. H. ROGERS Judge.

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

Appellee plaintiff in the court below, a minor sixteen years of age purchased a ticket which entitled her to passage on appellant's train to Charleston, Miss. In her declaration she alleges that she was sitting in the passenger coach when the train came to a stop, and one of the employees of the company approached her seat, and, without announcing the name of her station, picked up her baggage and told her that this was the place for her to get off the train, and that, relying upon this statement, appellee disembarked, and found after the train had departed that she had been put off at the wrong station. The station agent sent her to the home of his brother, where she spent the night with the family, and next morning was accompanied to the station, boarded another train, and was carried to her destination. There was no proof of mistreatment or exposure or any hardship or lack of comfort suffered by the appellee. She recovered a verdict for five hundred dollars, and the railroad company appeals.

Affirmed conditionally.

Mayes, Wells, May & Sanders, for appellant.

A brief allusion to some of the obligations of appellant as a carrier of passengers, may not be, at the outset, undesirable in the discussion of this case.

When the contract of carriage has been made by the sale and purchase of a ticket, or other contract for passage, the carrier assumes the contractual obligation toward the passenger to transport him to the place of destination named in the ticket or contract, and for failure to fulfill this obligation, the passenger may maintain an action for the resulting damages. This is a general statement of the rule, and it embraces many duties and obligations of a more specific character. The courts almost universally hold that it is no part of the undertaking of a railroad carrier, under ordinary circumstances, to do other than to safely transport the passenger, and to call out the names of the stations, and give the passengers a reasonable time to alight. They do not owe to each passenger the duty to warn him or her, concerning the arrival at their destination. The passenger is bound to the use of his senses, under ordinary conditions, and to take notice of the usual announcements of the station. St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Ricketts, 54 S.W. 1090; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 570.

Ordinarily, a railway carrier of passengers is under no duty to assist passengers to get on and off its vehicles, or to find seats for them; nor are they bound to wake a sleeping passenger in time for him to leave the train at the place of his destination. Sevier v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 61 Miss. 8; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Alexander, 30 S.W. 1113; Nichols v. Chicago R. Co., 71 Ga. 710. The authorities are almost uniform that the railway carrier discharges its duty when it stops at a station long enough to afford all passengers intending to alight there, a reasonable time to disembark in safety and the conductor is not required to go through the train and ascertain that each passenger so intending, has, in fact, disembarked.

The concensus of judicial opinion is that, in the absence of special circumstance, requiring extra precautions after notice in favor of passengers, the railway carrier discharges its duty to them, when, having announced the station on approaching it, its train is stopped for a reasonable length of time to enable all passengers to alight in safety, and the train conductor is not required to go through the cars and make an inspection or personal inquiries of passengers, but is entitled to act upon the assumption that the passengers know their destination, and will alight there in the absence of knowledge to the contrary.

This is not a case which presents any exception to this general rule. The record shows that the appellee is a young lady of more than average intelligence and that she was not unaccustomed to travel on the trains.

The duty of the carrier in this regard is fully and ably discussed in the leading case of Southern R. R. Co. v. Kendricks, 40 Miss. 374, 90 Am. Dec. 332 and note, accompanying the last named report. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Kilgore, 32 Pa. St. 294, 27 Am. Dec. 787, adopted by the supreme court at page 296; Vicksburg and Jackson R. R. v. Patton, 31 Miss. 192, 66 Am. Dec. 552; St. John v. Van Sabtvoord, 6 Hill, 157; New Orleans, Jackson, & G. N. R. R. v. Hurst, 36 Miss. 666, 74 Am. Dec. 785; Norfleet v. Sigman, 41 Miss. 630; Malone v. Robinson, 12 So. 709; House v. Fultz, 13 S. & M. 39; So. R. P. Co. v. Kendricks, 40 Miss. 374, cited supra; Herndon v. Henderson, 41 Miss. 584; Miss. Cen. R. Co. v. Miller, 40 Miss. 45; I. C. R. R. Co. v. McGowan, 92 Miss. 603; Chapman v. Copeland, 55 Miss. 476.

Thus it will be seen, that our own court has adjudged the giving of the instruction complained of in the case at bar was "fatally erroneous." We do not deem that further citation of authority on this assignment should be or is necessary.

The verdict of the jury was grossly excessive, and was manifestly the result of passion or prejudice. The lady suffered no injury. She was not exposed to any physical discomfort. She was cared for by kind and considerate friends, and after a comfortable night, she was carried to the train and proceeded upon her...