Page images
PDF
EPUB

а

end of the journey, a reasonable detention and examination is permissible.

A regulation that a railroad ticket shall be subject at any time to inspection by the conductor is reasonable, and the passenger after a refusal, although he has previously shown his ticket, cannot retain his place by again showing his ticket, after the car has been stopped to remove him.' Passengers must surrender their tickets during the trip, or pay their fare again."

Holders of commutation tickets may be required to show their tickets, and if the ticket is not shown, fare may be exacted without rendering the company liable to refund it."

liable to refund it." Where a passenger failed to produce his commutation ticket immediately when requested, such failure will not justify the conductor in treating him as a trespasser and ejecting him from the train. So where a passenger mislaid the ticket and for a time was unable to find it. The conductor afterwards again called for the ticket, and as the passenger was unable to find it, he was ejected from the car, withont any demand of payment of fare; his expulsion was wrongful.' But where the passenger knew when he got upon the train that his ticket was lost, he is not entitled to this lenity. And if, after being given a reasonable time to find it, he fails to pay his fare, he may be expelled from the train.'

Those having charge of a railroad train have the right to stop it and expel a passenger for refusing to pay fare, but they have no right to use unnecessary force in such expulsion." A person who

Standish v. Narragansett SS. Co. 111 Mass. 512.

Cresson v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. 11 Pbila. 600.
3 Hibbard v. New York & E. R. Co. 15 N. Y, 455.
* Northern R. Co. v. Page, 22 Barb. 130; Vedder v. Fellorca, 20 N. Y. 126.

See State v. Thompson, 20 N. H. 250; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Reed, 75

IlI. 125.
5 Bennett v. Railroad Co. 7 Pbila. 11.
Maples v. New York & N. H. R. Co. 38 Conn. 557.
? Robson v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. 21 Hun, 387.
* Crawford v. Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co. 26 Ohio St. 580; Dorne v. Nero

York & N. A. R. Co. 36 Conn, 287.
Ripley v. New Jersey R. & Transp. Co. 31 N. J. L. 388; Duke v. Greut West-

ern R. Co. 14 U. C. Q. B. 377; Robson v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co.
21 Hun, 387; Crawford v. Cincinnati, H. & D. R. CO. 26 Ohio St. 580;
Dorons v. Nero York & N. H. R. Co. 36 Conn. 287, and Maples v. New

York & N. H. R. Co. 38 Conn. 557, 2 Wood, Railway Law, 1407. ** Hounsville & I. R. Co. v. Gilmore, 1 Ind. App. 468.

9

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

refuses to pay his fare or to show his ticket when demanded by the conductor, from that time becomes a trespasser, and may be removed from the train. On failure to produce a ticket or pay fare, a passenger may be lawfully ejected, using no more force than is necessary.' Before he is ejected, other persons in his behalf may offer to pay the fare.' A railroad conductor is not justitied in refusing to accept an actual tender of fare before the train is stopped to put off one who fails to produce a ticket, no matter by whom the tender is made."

If the refusal be accompanied by violent and abusive conduct, the conductor may remove him notwithstanding a tender of full fare is then made. Evidence that plaintiff and another boarded a railroad train without purchasing tickets, offered the conductor an insufficient sum for the passage of the two, and, upon his understanding that they wished to pay three fares and so stating and demanding the additional sum required, refused to pay such amount, and did not explain or offer the proper sum, but volun

, 'Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Van Houten, 48 Ind. 90; Stone v. Chicago

& N. W. R. Co. 47 Iowa, 82; Sherman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 40 Iowa, 45; Swan v. Manchester & L. R. Co. 132 Mass. 116; Boston & L. R. Co. v. Proctor, 1 Allen, 267; Lillis v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co. 64 Mo. 464; Wentz v. Erie R. Co. 3 Hun, 241; Bennett v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. 5 Hun, 599, 69 N. Y. 594; Nelson v. Long Island R. Co. 7 Hun, 140; Hubbard v. New York & E. R. Co. 15 N. Y. 455; O'Brien v. Nero York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. 80 N. Y. 236; Powell v. Pittsburg, C. & St. L. R. Co. 25 Ohio St. 70; Shedd v. Troy & B. R. Co. 40 Vt. 88; Thomas v. Geidart, 4 Pugs. & B. (N. B.) 95; Briggs v. Grand Trunk R. Co. 24 U.C.

Q. B. 510; Farewell v. Grand Trunk R. Co. 15 U. C. C. P. 427. *MacKay v. Ohio Riter R. Co. 9 L. R. A. 132, 34 W. Va. 65; South Florido

R. Co. v. Rhoads, 3 L. R. A. 733, 25 Fla. 40; Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Van Houten, 48 Ind. 90; Stone v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 47 Iowa, 82; Sherman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 40 Iowa, 45; Suan v. Manchester & L. R. Co. 132 Mass. 116; Boston & L. R. Co. v. Proctor, 1 Allen, 267; Lillis v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co. 64 Mo. 464; Wentz v. Erie R. Co. 3 Hun, 241; Bennett v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. 5 Hun, 599, 69 N. Y. 594; Nelson v. Long Island R. Co. 7 Hun, 140; Hibbard v. Nero York & E. R. Co. 15 N. Y. 455; O'Brien v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. 80 N. Y. 236; Powell v. Pittsburg, C. & St. L. R. Co. 25 Ohio St. 70; Shedd v. Troy & B. R. Co. 40 Vt. 88; Thomas v. Geldart, 4 Pugs. & B. (N. B.) 95; Briggs v. Grand Trunk R. Co. 24 U. C. Q. B. 510; Farewell v. Grand Trunk R. Co. 15 U. C. C. P. 427; Pennsylvania Co. v. Iline, 41

Ohio St. 276. 3 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Garrett, 8 Lea, 438; Guy v. Nero York, O. & W. R.

Co. 30 Hun, 399; Hoffbauer v. Davenport & N. W. R. Co. 52 Iowa, 342;

O'Brien v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. 80 N. Y. 236. *Ham v. Delaware & H. Canal Co. 142 Pa. 617; or stops at a station, Guy

v. New York, O. & W. R. Co. 30 Hun, 399. "Gould v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 18 Fed. Rep. 155; Hofbauer v. Da

venport & N. W. R. Co. 52 Iowa. 342.

[ocr errors]

tarily got off the train at the conductor's request, and walked back half a mile to the station at which they boarded the trainwill not sustain a judgment for damages for illegal ejection from the train.' Nor will a lack of such courtesy by a carrier's einployé as might be demanded by a passenger, entitle one who does not pay his fare to an action for damages. A railway company cannot be held liable in damages because its conductor informed a husband in a brusque manner, in the presence of his wife, whose head was resting on a pillow as though she was an invalid, that they must pay their fares or get off, and, after waiting till the train reached the next station, said in a decided or rude tone that they must get off.”

A passenger who has not purchased his ticket before entering the

cars, and who refuses to pay the additional fare exacted on the train, may be expelled from the cars with no unnecessary violence.' A passenger who is without a ticket and declines to pay full fare may ordinarily be ejected from a train at a station, as one may who absolutely refuses to pay his fare. A party expelled from the cars for refusal to pay fare cannot recover damages therefor."

But if the ticket has been wrongfully taken up, it will render the carrier liable if he be ejected. Or where no return ticket was given through mistake of conductor.' But in some cases the reinedy is for breach of contract." So where the wrong ticket is given. An attempt to avoid payment of fare, need not be fraudalent to warrant the ejection or removal of a passenger. The

10

[ocr errors]

Eddy v. Elliot (Tex.) Nov. 29. 1890.
? Rose v. Wilmington & W. R. Co. 106 N. C. 168.
3 State v. Goold, 53 Me. 279; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Blocher, 27 Md. 277.
4 State v.

Goold, 53 Me. 279; Stephen v. Smith, 29 Vt. 160; Hilliard v. Goold, 34 N. H. 230. See also Suan v. Manchester & L. R. Co. 132 Mass. 116. 5 Post v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 14 Neb, 110. * Townsend v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. 6 Thomp. & C. 495, 4 Hun,

217; Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Hennigh, 39 Ind. 509; City & 8. R. Co. of Sarannah v. Brauss, 70 Ga. 368; Hamilton v. Third Ave. R. Co.

53 N. Y. 25; Palmer v. Charlotte, C. & A. R. Co. 3 S. C. 580. Baltimore &0. R. Co. v. Bambrey (Pa.) Nov.5, 1888; Lake Erie & W. R. Co.

v. Fix, 88 Ind. 381: Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. Rice, 64 Md. 63. * Frederick v. Marquette, H. &0. R. Co. 37 Mich. 342. Bradshar v. South Boston R. Co. 135 Mass. 407. See St. Louis, A. & T. R.

Co. v. Mackie, 1 1. R. A. 667, 71 Tex. 491. 10 Marshall v. Boston & A. R. Co. 5 New Eng. Rep. 172, 145 Mass. 164.

ticket or pay

failure to pay the fare of a child under the care of a passenger will authorize the expulsion of the passenger.' The duty of a conductor in expelling a man from a railway train for nonpaymnent of fare is not so strictly defined as to remove its determination from the jury.' It has been said that it is the conductor's duty, until the contrary is proven, to accept as true the statements of a passenger that he has paid his fare, and as to the. amount he paid, to the agent of the company who gave him the ticket he presented and told him it was good, no matter what the ticket contained in words, figures or other marks.' But this statement must be accepted with many qualifications and its limitations will be fully considered in the next following sections; but under all authorities a reasonable degree of judgment, exercised in good faith, should protect the conductor in his action under

any circumstances.

The conductor of a railway passenger train cannot immediately expel a passenger, except in case of absolute refusal to produce a

fare. A passenger is entitled to a reasonable time in which to find the ticket, and cannot be expelled until such reasonable time has been given him.What is a reasonable time is a question of fact for the jury.'

A passenger cannot be treated as a trespasser merely because he cannot find his ticket, where he does not refuse to pay his fare upon demand by the conductor.' If a passenger is abused and insulted, and required to leave the train without being given reasonable time to produce his ticket, he is entitled to recover, not Philadelphin, W. & B. R. C). v. Hoeflich. 62 Md. 300; Gibson v. East Ten.

nessee, V. & G. R. Co. 30 Fed. Rep. 904. 'Arnold v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 6 Cent. Rep. 630, 115 Pa. 137. 'Hufford v. Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. 7 West. Rep. 859, 64 Mich. 631. * Pennington v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. 62 Md. 95; Johnson v. Phila

delphia, W. & B. R. Co. 63 Md. 106. *Curl v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 63 Iowa, 417, 11 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.

85; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Bond, 62 Tex. 442; Robson v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. 21 Hun, 387; Maples v. Nero York & N. H. R. Co. 38

Coon. 557. 'Hayes v. Nero York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. 20 N. Y. Week. Dig. 237, 9 Hun,

63; International & G. N. R. Co. v. Wilkes, 68 Tex. 617; Robson v. Nero York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. 21 Hun, 387; Maples v. Nero York & N. II. R. Co. 38 Conn. 557; Clark v. Wilmington & W. R. Co. 91 N. C. 506; Curl

v. Chicago, R. 1. & P. R. Co. 63 lowa, 417. 'Ham v. Delaware & H. Canal Co. 142 Pa. 617.

2

only nominal, but exemplary damages.' So where he is ejected by the same conductor to whom he has paid his fare." An action for damages lies against a street car company for ejecting a passenger after a refusal to accept in payment of fare a genuine silver coin worn smooth by use, but distinguishable and not appreciably diminished in weight."

$59. Refusal to Pay, or Exhibit Ticket. A passenger who leaves a train delayed by a wreck nearly all night, and waits at a hotel for another train because he is not well enough to remain on the car, is entitled to pass the next day on the check given him as a substitute for his ticket by the first conductor, or at least upon payment of the regular fare; and, if put off for refusal to pay the extra charge required of those who fail to procure tickets, he may recover damages.'

Where a railroad conductor refuses to take a passenger's ticket on the ground that it has been punched to a station beyond that at which the passenger stopped over, and threatens to eject him, but carries him to the next station, where the passenger, although insisting that he has paid his fare, purchases a ticket to the place to which the first ticket was punched, but the conductor refuses to take it unless he pays the fare from the place where he stopped over to the station where he bought his new ticket, and ejects the passenger--the company is liable."

After a railroad train has been stopped at a point where it would not otherwise delay, for the purpose of ejecting a passenger for nonpayment of fare, the company may refuse to accept fare from such passenger, and if he return to the train, may again eject bim. The rule is otherwise where the train is stopped at a regular station.'

Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Maybin, 66 Miss. 83. 'English v. Delaware & II. Canal Co. 66 N. Y. 454; Townsend v. New York

Cent. & H. R. R. Co. 6 Thomp. & C. 495; Shelton v. Lake Shore & M. S.

R. Co. 29 Ohio St. 214. 8 Jersey City & B. R. Co. v. Morgan, 52 N. J. L. 60. *Louisville & N.W. R. Co. v. Wilsey (Ky.) 5 L. R. A. 855, 39 Am. & Eng. R.

Cas. 418. 5 Ward v. New York Cent. & H, R. R. Co. 56 Hun, 268. Pickens v. Richmond & D. R. Co. 104 N. C. 312; O'Brien v. New York Cent.

& I. R. R. CO. 80 N. Y. 236; Hoffbauer v. Davenport & N. W. R. Co. 52

Iowa, 342. *Toledo, W. & W. R. Co. v. Wright, 68 Ind. 586, 34 Am. Rep. 277; Guy v.

New York, O. & W. R. Co. 30 Hun, 399.

« PreviousContinue »