Copyright
J. G. (Jabez Gridley) Sutherland.

A treatise on the law of damages : embracing an elementary exposition of the law, and also its application to particular subjects of contract and tort (Volume 3) online

. (page 115 of 132)
Online LibraryJ. G. (Jabez Gridley) SutherlandA treatise on the law of damages : embracing an elementary exposition of the law, and also its application to particular subjects of contract and tort (Volume 3) → online text (page 115 of 132)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


2.50; Terra Haute, etc. R. Co. v. Carolina Cent. R. Co., 94 N. C. 318,
Vanatta, 21 111. 188, 74 Am. Dec. g Am. Neg. Cas. 563; Murphy v.
96, 8 Am. Neg. Cas. 150; Southern Western & A. R. Co., 23 Fed. 637,
R. Co. V. Barlow, 104 Ga. 213, 4 g Am. Neg. Cas. 707; Brenner v. R.
Am. Neg. Rep. 610, 09 Am. St. 166; ^.^^ ^^^^^.^

Brenner v. Jonesboro, etc. R. Co., -, , , ,, ,, i • o /-, t. /-,

' ' "•>Hall V. ^thniphis & C. R. Co.,

82 Ark. 128, 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1060, -.^ i.^ , r^ t, , • o ..

no A oi. r-^ T, 1 Tir 1 ,• 15 ted. 57; Pennsylvania R. Co. v.

118 Am. St. 56; Bough v. Metropoli- ^, ,, , ,

* oi T, n oi » T.- /^T^7 . Connell, 112 111. 295.
tan St. R. Co., 82 A pp. Div. (N. Y.)

215; Jackson v. Old Colony St. R. '''*^""'^' "^"- ^'- ^o- v. Dyer, 43

Co., 206 Mass. 477, 30 L.R.A.(N.S.) '^*'^'- <^'^- '^I'^^- ^3; Chicago, etc. R.

1046. See Cleveland City R. Co. <"«• ^- <"^'>'1'"' 68 111. 409, 8 Am.

V. Conner, 74 Ohio 225, 20 Am. Neg. '^^"^ ^'i^- ^"^= Pennsylvania R. Co.

Rep. 182. V. Connell, 112 111. 305, 127 id. 419;

72 Cincinnati, etc. R. Co. v. Cole, Hall v. Jilcmphis & C. R. Co., 15
29 Oliio St. 126, 8 Am. Neg. Cas. Fed. 57.



3500 SUTHERLAND ON DAMA-3ES. [§ 949

demanded, if able to do so, and sue for the amount; that the
damages cannot be increased by an obstinate resistance to the
conductor's demand and by forcing him to resort to expulsion.
If the passenger does resist his conduct can be considered in
mitigation and will reduce the damages to a nominal sum or
such as were actually sustained by his delay in reaching his
destination, or otherwise.''^ This varies from the rule applied
in some jurisdictions, including the supreme court of the United
States. There the passenger may pay or leave the train. If
he does the latter he may recover full compensation for all
damages proximately resulting. ''^^ The tendency of the later
adjudications is in favor of this view. Injudicious resistance
will not mitigate the damages which were recoverable inde-
pendently of it." In some states the damages recoverable for
an assault may be lessened by proof of provocation; in others
they cannot be.'^ An ejected passenger cannot recover for the
subsequent results if he refuses the carrier's invitation to re-
sume his journey.''* Where the circumstances were such that
the conductor could have readily ascertained whether or not an
ejected passenger had paid his fare the fact that the latter
could have prevented his ejection by giving up another ticket
he had does not bar his right to recover damages in excess of
the value of the ticket ®°

76 Western Maryland R. Co. r. 44 Am. St. 844, 8 Am. Neg. Cas.

Stocksdale, 83 Md. 245, 8 Am. Neg. 651. See § 940.

Cas. 360; Gibson v. East Tennessee, A passenger may decline to per-

etc. R. Co., 30 Fed. 904, 8 Am. Neg. mit a fellow-passenger to pay his

Cas. 707; Hall v. Mempliis & C. R. fare without affecting his right to

Co., 15 Fed. 57. See § 940. recover for subsequent damage. Bir-

76Yorton v. Milwaukee, etc. R. gingham R., L. & P. Co. v. Lee, 153

Co., 62 Wis. 367; St. Louis, etc. R. ^la 386
Co. V. Mackie, 71 Tex. 491, 8 Am.
Neg. Cas. 636, 10 Am. St. 766,
1 L.R.A. 667; Head v. Georgia
Pac. R, Co., 79 Ga. 358, 8 Am. Neg.

Cas. 135; Willson v. Northern Pac. '* ^'^^ § ^^^•

R. Co., 5 Wa-sli. 621; Pennsylvania '» Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Hine,

Co. V. Lcnhart, 120 Fed. 61; Trice 121 Ala. 234.

V. Che.sapeake & O. R. Co., 40 W. Va. *° Sprenger v. Tacoma T. Co., 15

271, 8 Am. Neg. Cas. 663; Norfolk Wash. 660, 8 Am. Neg. Cas. 661, 43

& W. R. Co. v. Anderson, 90 Va. 1, L.R.A. 706.



77 Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Russ,
57 Fed. 822, 6 C. C. A. .597, 8 Am.
Neg. Cas. 704.



§ 950]



CAKKIEKS.



3501



§ 950. Exemplary damages. A carriers conduct may be so
culpable in causing injury, or in connection with it, as to sub-
ject him to exemplary damages as a punishment to him and an
example to others.*^ To justify such damages, however, there
must usually be fraud, malice, oppression, insult, capriciousness,
recklessness or other wilful misconduct, or that entire want of



81 Distler v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.,
163 Mo. App. 674; Ft. Smith & W.
R. Co. V. Ford, 34 Okla. 575, 41
L.R.A. (N.S.) 745; Forrester v.
Southern Pac. Co., 36 Nev. 247, 48
L.R.A. (N.S.) 1 (though the action
be for a tortious breach of the con-
tract) ; Mobile & 0. R. Co. v. More-
land, 104 Miss. 312, 46 L.R.A. (N.S.)
52 (refusal to stop train to allow
passenger to alight), distinguishing
Yazoo, etc. R. Co. v. Hardie, 100
Miss. 132, 55 So. 42, 34 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 740, in which the passenger
requested that the train be backed
to the station to which he was
ticketed; Little Rock R. & E. Co.
V. Goerner, 80 Ark. 158, 7 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 97; Chicago Con. T. Co. v.
Mahoney, 230 111. 562; Louisville &
N. R. Co. V. Scott, 141 Ky. 538, 34
L.R.A. (N.S.) 206; Lexington R. Co.
V. Johnson, 139 Ky. 232; Maryland
& P. R. Co. V. Tucker, 115 Md. 43;
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Gortikov, 90
Miss. 787, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 464, 122
Am. St. 384; Yazoo, etc. R. Co. v
Roberts, 88 Miss. 80; Harkless v
Chicago, etc. R. Co., 151 Mo. App
463, 4 N. C. C. A. 1000; Short v
St. Louis, etc. R. Co., 150 Mo. App
359, 4 N. C. C. A. 1001; Ickenroth
V. St. Louis T. Co., 102 Mo. App
597; White v. Metropolitan St. R
Co., 132 Mo. App. 339; Glover v
Atchison, etc. R. Co., 129 Mo. App
563; Dorsett v. Atlantic C. L. R
Co., 156 N. 0. 439, 4 N. G. C. A
1012; Mcintosh v. Augusta & A. R
Co., 87 S. C. 181, 30 L.R.A.(N.S,)



889; Best v. Columbia St. R.,
L. & P. Co., 85 S. C. 422; Dob-
son V. Duncan, 90 S. C. 414; Illi-
nois Cent. R. Co. v. Fleming, 148
Ky. 473; Lilly v. St. Louis, etc. R.
Co., 31 Okla. 521, 39 L.R.A. (N.S.)
663 (intentional and wilful refusal
to give a passenger information as
to where to change trains) ; New
Orleans, etc. R. Co. v. Hurst, 36
Miss. 660, 8 Am. Neg. Cas. 456, 74
Am. Dec. 785; Same v. Statliam,
42 Miss. 607; Caldwell v. New Jer-
sey S. Co., 47 N. Y. 282, 9 Am. Neg.
Cas. 586; Graham v. Pacific R. Co.,
69 Mo. 536; Pennsylvania R. Co. v.
Books, 57 Pa. 339, 98 Am. Dec. 229;
Goddard v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 57
Me. 217; Quigley v. Central Pac. R.
Co., 11 Nev. 350, 21 Am. Rep. 757;
Lucas V. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 98
Mich. 1, 39 Am. St. 517, 8 Am. Neg.
Cas. 431; Memphis & C. P. Co. v.
Nagel, 97 Ky. 9, 15 Ky. L. Rep.
742; Kiley v. Chicago City R. Co.,
90 111. App. 275, 9 Am. Neg. Rep.
476; Callaway v. Mellett, 15 Ind.
App. 366, 57 Am. St. 238; Atchison,
etc. R. Co. V. Long, 5 Kan. App.
644, 1 Am. Neg. Rep. 437 ; Dawson
V. Louisville & N. R. Co., 4 Ky. L.
Rep. 801, 6 id. 668; Louisville City
R. Co. V. Mercer, 11 Ky. L. Rep. 810
(Ky. Super. Ot.) ; Louisville & N.
R. Co. V. Wilkinson, 15 Ky. L. Rep.
92 (Ky. Super. Ct.) ; Baltimore, etc.
R. Co. V. Kirby, 91 Md. 313;
Knoxville T. Co. v. Lane, 103 Tenn.
376, 46 L.R.A. 549; Nashville St. R.
V. Griffin, 104 Tenn. 81, 49 L.R.A.



3502



SUTHERLAND ON DAMAGES.



[§ 950



care wliicli would raise the presumption of conscious indiffer-
ence to consequences.*^ In cases where the wrong done is to



451; Eailway Co. v. Davis, 56 Ark.
51; Fordyce v. Nix, 58 Ark. 136, 8
Am. Neg. Cas. 43, citing the text;
Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Barger,
80 Md. 23, 8 Am. Neg. Cas. 360,
26 L.E.A. 220, 45 Am. St. 319;
Louisville, etc. R. Oo. v. Goben, 15
Ind. App. 123; Samuels v. Rich-
mond, etc. R. Co., 35 S. C. 493, 28
Am. St. 883; Haehl v. Wabash R.
Co., 119 Mo. 325; Zion v. Southern
Pac. Co., 67 Fed. 500; Tomlinson v,
Wilmington, etc. R. Co., 101 N. C.
327, 8 Am. Neg. Cas. 564; Norfolk,
etc. R, Co. v. Neely, 91 Va. 539;
Denison & S. R. Co. v. Randell, 29
Tex. Civ. App. 460; Gorman v.
Southern Pac. Co., 97 Cal. 1, 33 Am.
St. 157 ; Spellman v. Richmond, etc.
R. Co., 35 S. C. 475; Choctaw, etc.
R. Co. V. Hill, 110 Tenn. 396.

82 Pine Bluff & A. R. Ry. Co. v.
Washington, — Ark. — , 172 S. W.
872; Whittington v. Philadelphia,
B. & W. R. Co., — Del. Super. Ct.
— , 93 Atl. 563; Pacelli v. People's
Ry. Co., — Del. Super. Ct. — , 93
Atl. 560; McCullough v. Missouri
Pac. Ry. Co., — Kan. — , 146 Pac.
1005; Cook v. Lusk, 186 Mo. App.
288; Burrus v. Nevada-California-
Oregon Ry., — Nev. — , 145 Pac.
926; Woodward v. Southern R. Co.,
99 S. 0. 251, L.R.A. 1915C 477;
Williams v. Atlantic Coast Line R.
Co., 99 S. C. 397; Turk v. Norfolk
& W. R. Co., — W. Va. — , 84 S. E.
569 ; Birmingham Ry., Light &
Power Co. v. McLeod, 9 Ala. App.
637; Cook v. Southern R. Co., 153
Ala. 118; St. Louis S. R. Co. v.
Pearson, 88 Ark. 200; Same v. Baty,
88 Ark. 282; Choctaw, etc. R. Co.
V. Cantwoll, 78 Ark. 331; Little
Rock T. & E. Co. V. Winn, 75 Ark.



529; Southern R. Oo. v. Phillips.
136 Ga. 282 ; Louisville & N. R. Co.
v. Scott, 141 Ky. 538, 34 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 206; Same v. Summers, 133
Ky. 684; Yazoo, etc. R. Co. v. Fitz-
gerald, 96 Miss. 197; Louisville &
N. R. Co. V. Mount, 125 Ky. 593;
Southern R. Co. v. Hawkins, 121
Ky. 415; Philadelphia, etc. R. Co.
V. Green, 110 Md. 32; Northern
Cent. R. Co. v. Newman, 98 Md.
507, 15 Am. Neg. Rep. 572; Lam-
son V. Great Northern R. Co., 114
Minn. 182 ; Berg v. St. Paul City R.
Co., 96 Minn. 513; Yazoo, etc. R.
Co. V. Hardie, 100 Miss. 132, 34
L.R.A. (N.S.) 740, 4 N. C. C. A.
665; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Dodds,
97 Miss 865; St. Louis, etc. R. Co.
V. Roane, 93 Miss. 7; Illinois Cent.
R. Co. V. Smith, 85 Miss. 349, 17
Am. Neg. Rep. 666, 70 L.R.A. 642;
Same v. Harper, 83 Miss. 560, 64
L.R.A. 283, 102 Am. St. 469; Yazoo,
etc. R. Co. V. Mitchell, 83 Miss.
179; Smith v. St. Louis, etc. R. Co.,
127 Mo. App. 53; Madigan v. St.
Louis T. Co., 117 Mo. App. 118;
Gardner v. St. Louis, etc. R. Co.,
117 Mo. App. 138; Amnions v. Rail-
road, 140 N. C. 196, 19 Am. Neg.
Rep. 474; Black v. Charleston, etc.
R. Co., 87 S. C. 241, 31 L.R.A.(N.S.)
1184, 19 Am. Neg. Rep. 474;
Black V. Atlantic C. L. R. Co.,
82 S. C. 478; Ussery v. Au-
gusta-A. R. Co., 79 S. C. 209; Tay-
lor V. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 78 S. C.
552; Trapp v. Southern R., 72 S. C.
343; Selsor v. Chesapeake & 0. R.
Co., 148 Ky. 39, 5 N. C. C. A. 626;
Southern R. Co. v. Cartledge, 10 Ga.
App. 523, 4 N. 0. C. A. 669 ; Hunter
V. Southern R. Co., 90 S. C. 507;
Southern R. Co. v. Nappier. 138 Ga.



§ ^50] CAaK,KH.s. 3503

tiio public, as wliere regulations arc made which prevent pas-
sengers from stopping and receiving their baggage at the places



•Tl : Di Benedetto v. Milwaukee E
K. & L. Co., 149 Wis. 566; Shockley
V. Southern R. Co., 93 S. C. 533;
f^t. Louis, etc. K. Co. v. Freeland, 39
Okla. f.O; Louisville & N. R. Co. v.
'I'liomason, 6 Ala. App, 365; Same
V. Cornelius, 6 Ala. App. 386; Bow-
ers V. Kansas City S. R. Co., 131
La. 915; Milwaukee, etc. R. Co. v.
Arras, 91 V. S. 489, 23 L. ed. 374, 12
Am. Neg. Cas. 680; Doss v. Missouri,
etc. R. Co., 5!) Mo. 27, 4 Am. Neg.
Cas. 490; McKeon v. Citizens' R.
Co., 42 Mo. 79, 4 Am. Neg. Cas. 471 ;
Kentucky, etc. R. Co. v. Dills, 4
Barb 593; Western U. Tel. Co. v.
Eyser, 91 U. S. 49.5, note; 23 L.
ed. 377; Thompson v. New Orleans,
etc. R. Co., .'iO .Miss. 315, 19 Am.
Rep. 12; Caldwell v. New Jersey S.
Co., 47 N. Y. 282; Hamilton v.
Third Ave. R. Co., 53 N. Y. 25;
Du Laurans v. St. Paul R. Co., 15
-Minn. 49, 8 Am. Xeg. Caa. 446, 2
Am. Rep. 102; Pullman, etc. Co. v.
Reed, 75 111. 125, 20 Am. Rep. 232,
8 Am. Neg. Cas. 195; Toledo, etc.
R. Co. V. Patterson, 63 111. 304,' 8
Am. Neg. Cas. 105; Paine v. Chi-
cago, etc. R. Co., 45 Iowa 569; Sey-
mour V. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 3 Bias.
43, 7 Am. Neg. (as. 544; Pittsburgh,
etc. R. Co. V. Sliisser, 19 Ohio St.
157; Holmes v. Carolina Cent. R.
Co., 94 N. C. 318, quoting the text,
8 Am. ^eg. Cas. 563; Sullivan v.
Oregon R. & N. Co., 12 Ore. 392;
Philadelpliia T. Co. v. Orbann, 119
Ta. 37, 10 Am. Neg. Cas. 133;
Louisville, elc. U. Co. v. (iuinan, 11
Lea 98, 8 Am. Neg. (as. 624. 47
Am. Rep. 279; llptlnian v. Northern
Pac. R. Co., 45 .Minn. 53, 8 .Xm. Neg.
('as. 444; Atchison, etc. R. Co. v.
Ilogue, 50 Kan. 40; Louisville & N.



R. Co. V. Ballard, 6 Ky. L. Rep. 542
(Ky. Super. Ot.; "indecorous" con-
duct to a female passenger, in
connection with negligence, not
enough); Louisville & N. R. Co. v.
Jackson, ]8 Ky. L. Rep. 296; Judice
v. Southern Pac. Co., 47 La. Ann.
255; Smith v. Philadelphia, etc. R.
Co., 87 -Md. 48; Pine v. St. Paul
City R. Co., 50 Minn. 144, 8 Am.
Neg. Cas. 448, 16 L.R.A. 347 ; Hans-
ley V. Jamesville, etc. R. Co., 115
N. C. 602, 44 Am. St. 474, 32 L.R.A.
'>43, 117 N. C. 565, 53 Am. St. 600;
Norfolk & W. R. Co." v. Neeley, 91
Va. 539; Vicksburg R., etc. Co. v.
Marlett, 78 Miss. 872; Carr v.
Toledo T. Co., 19 Ohio C. C. 281;
Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. Biddle, 17
Ky. L. Kep. 1303; V'assau v. Madi-
eon E. R. Co., 106 Wis. 301.

Demanding an additional fare,
no circumstances of aggravation
being shown, is not ground for the
recovery of punitive damages. Carr
V. Toledo T. Co., 19 Ohio C. C. 281.
The Georgia code provides that
"in every tort there may be aggra-
vating circumstances, either in the
act or in the intention, and in that
event the jury may give additional
damages, either to deter the wrong-
doer from repeating the trespass, or
as compensation for the wounded
feelings of the plaintiff." The word
"trespass," it has been held, cm-
braces only that class of torts which
involve a vioj.iit, unlawful, physical
invasion of one's rights of person or
jiroperty, and this classification
necessarily excludes those acta of
one person resulting in injury to
another, which arise from mere
omii^sion to perform a duty imposed
upon the party boind to perform



3504



SCTHEKLAIVD ON DAMAGES.



[§ 950



they desire, or the conductor refuses to stop there, or there is
a refusal to check baggage to a point on another road to which
a ticket has been sold, exemplary damages may be imposed with-
out any proof of malice or ill-will to the individual whose rights



by the terms of a contract entered
into between them, as the mere
negligent omission to stop a train
at a point to which the transporta-
tion of a passenger has been under-
taken. Southern R. Co. v. Harden,
101 Ga. 263, 3 Am. Neg. Rep. 783;
Southern R. Co. v. Bryant, 105 Ga.
316.

It has been held that the allow-
ance of exemplary damages for wan-
ton and wilful injuries to a passen-
ger is merely discretionary with the
jury. Wilhelm v. Parkersburg, M.
& I. R. Co., 74 W. Va. 678.

Injury to the feelings of a parent
arising from a wanton and wilful
breach of duty in the manner of
transporting the body of his de-
ceased child is a ground for award-
ing punitive damages. Birmingham
T. & T. Co. V. Still, 7 Ala. App.
556.

Punitive damages may be recov-
ered by a son who suffers mental
anguish as a result of an injury to
the body of his dead mother sus-
tained because of the wilful and in-
tentional rough handling while un-
loading of the casket containing the
body in his presence. Wall v. St.
Louis & S. F. R. Co., 184 Mo. App.
127.

Misinformation given a passenger
by the ticket collector of a carrier
as to the making of a connection
may be a ground for the recovery of
punitive damages if it was reckless-
ly and wilfully given. Wilcox v.
Southern R. Co., 76 S. C. 71.

A passenger who purchases a
ticket for a certain train on the
representation of the agent that it



is good on that train may recover
actual and also punitive damages
where he is wrongfully, wantonly
and maliciously ejected from the
train. Douglas v. Southern R. Co.,
98 S. C. 346.

"There can be no doubt that
where a conductor uses language to
a passenger which is calculated to
insult, humiliate or wound the feel-
ings of a person of ordinary feelings
and sensibilities, and it is intended
to have that effect, the carrier is
liable" for punitive damages, "for
the contract of carriage impliedly
stipulates for decent, courteous and
respectful treatment at the hands of
the carrier's servants." Cave v.
Seaboard A. L. R., 94 S. C. 282.

If no physical force is used a
passenger who is rightfully required
to leave the train may not recover
punitive damages though insulting
language was used. Bolles v. Kan-
sas City S. R. Co., 134 Mo. App.
696; Boling v. St. Louis, etc. R. Co.,
189 Mo. 219.

The failure to stop a train at a
flag station because the engineer
did not exercise ordinary care in
looking for the signal is not cause
for imposing such damages. St.
Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Garner, 96
Miss. 577.

Where a passenger had misplaced
his ticket, and without being given
sufficient time in which to search
for it, was immediately ejected from
the train, he was allowed to recover
punitive damages, though the ejec-
tion was not accompanied by any
insulting language or rough han-
dling of the passenger's person.



§ 950]



CARRIEKS.



3505



are denied.*' The same rule has been applied for a refusal to
carry," where discrimination has been made against individuals
in pursuance of the carrier's rules/* and where there has been a
wilful and wanton failure to transport baggage with reasonable
dispatch.*^ Private business corporations maj be sued in tres-
pass for the authorized acts of their servants; and if a trespass
or other wrong is committed by their authority, with circum-
stances of violence and outrage, such as would authorize exem-
plary damages against a natural person, it is settled that the
same rule applies to such corporations. If a corporation, like
a railroad company, is guilty of an act or default, such as in the
case of an individual would subject him to exemplary damages,
it is equally liable thereto.*'' Where the servants of a corpora-



Louisville & N. R. Co. V. Mason, 10
Ala. App. 263. Punitive damages
were also allowed where a passenger
presented a mileage ticket which
provided that it would not be hon-
ored unless accompanied by the
mileage book and that the holder
identify himself to the satisfaction
of the conductor. The carrier's
agent in issuing the ticket having
retained the book, the train auditor
ejected the plaintiff, though the
facts were reasonably explained to
the auditor and the plaintiff was
identified by another passenger
whom the auditor knew. Williams
V. Southern Ry. Co., — Miss. — , 64
So. 969.

83 Owens V. Atlantic C. L. R. Co.,
152 N. C. 439; Martin v. Southern
R. Co., 89 S. C. 32, 4 N. C. C. A.
672; Ring v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co.,
86 S. C. 528; Sullivan v. Southern
R., 74 S. C. 377; Milhous v. Same,
72 S. C. 442, 110 Am. St. 620;
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Lyon, 123
Pa. 140, 10 Am. St. 517, 2 L.R.A.
489 ; Cowon v. Winters, 96 Fed. 929,
37 C. C. A. 628; Winters v. Cowen,
90 Fed. 99; Birmingham R., L. &
P. Co. V. Taylor, 6 Ala. App. 661.



8* Indiana Union T. Co. v. Heller,
44 Ind. App. 385.

85 Brown v. Memphis & C. R. Co.,
7 Fed. 51, 8 Am. Neg. Oas. 705.
Hammond, J., said: The rule in
cases where the offense is against
the individual is that the want of
malice only mitigates the punish-
ment in damages and may reduce
them to zero according to circum-
stances. But where the offense is
not only against a particular indi-
vidual, but also against the public,
as in most if not all the cases of
wrongful exclusion of passengers
the question is one solely for the
jury to say how much punishment is
necessary to enforce the rights of
the public against the carrier, as
well as to vindicate the individual.
Houck V. Southern Pac. R. Co., 38
Fed. 226.

86 Webb V. Atlantic C. L. R. Co.,
76 S. C. 193, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1218;
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Lyon, 123
Pa. 140, 2 L.R.A. 489, 10 Am. St.
517.

87 Ann Arbor R. Co. v. Amos, 85
Ohio 300, 4 X. C. C. A. 1019; Balti-
more & O. R. Co. V. Reed, 12 Ohio
C. C (N.S.) 177; Scioto Valley T.



3506



SUTHERLAND ON DAMAGES.



[§ 950



tion engcOged in the carriage of passengers are ginlty of such acts
or conduct in the i)erformance of their duties in the transporta-
tion of the injured party as a passenger as would subject them
to damages of this nature, the great weight of authority holds
the corporation liahle to punitive damages without proof that it
directed or ratified such acts or conduct.*^ As the corporation



Ck». V, Graybill, 8 id. 469; Hopkins
V. Atlantic, etc. R. Co., 36 N. H. 9,
72 Am. Dec. 287; Pittsburgh, etc.
Co. V. Slusser, 19 Ohio St. 157; At-
lantic, etc. R. Co. V. Dunn, id. 162,
2 Am. Rep. 382; Graham v. Pacific
R. Co., 66 Mo. 536; New Orleans,
etc. R. Co. V. Bailey, 40 Miss. 395;
Same v. Hurst, 30 Miss 660, 74 Am.
Dec. 785; Vicksburg, etc. R. Co.
V. Patton, 31 Miss. 156, 66 Am. Dec.
552, 12 Am. Neg. Cas. 187; Illinois,
etc. R. Co. V. Hammer, 72 HI. 353;
Hamilton v. Third Ave. R. Co., 53
N. Y. 25; Cleghorn v. New York,
etc. R. Co., 56 N. Y. 44, 16 Am.
Neg. Cas. 814, 15 Am. Rep. 375;
Western U. Tel. Co. v. Eyser, 2
Colo. 141.

88 Pullman Co. v. Lutz, 154 Ala.
517, 14 L.R.A.(N.S.) 907, 129 Am.
St. 67 ; Birmingham R., L. & P. Co.
V. Lee, 153 Ala. 386; Little Rock R.
& E. Co. V. Dobbins, 78 Ark. 553;
Atlanta, etc. R. Co. v. Potts, 128
Ga. 397; Seaboard A. L. R. v.
O'Quinn, 124 Ga. 357, 2 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 472; Savannah E. Co. v.
Badenhoop, 6 Ga. App. 371; Balti-
more, etc. R. Co. V. Davis, 44 Ind.
App. 375; Lexington R. Co. v. John-
son, 139 Ky. 323; Rosenkovitz v.
United R. & E. Co., 108 Md. 300;
Ford v. Minneapolis St. R. Co., 98
Minn. 90; Yazoo, etc. R. Co. v. Fitz-
gerald, 9C Miss. 197; Illinois Cent.
p. Co. V. Reid, 93 Miss. 458, 17
L.R.A. (N.S.) 344; Burns v. Ala-
bama & V. R. Co., 93 Miss. 816;
Yfuoo, etc. R. Co. v. Williams, 87



Miss. 344; Alabama & V. R. Co. v.
Livingston, 84 Miss. 1; McNamara
V. St. Louis T. Co., 182 Mo. 676, 66
L.R.A. 486; Sommerfield v. Same,
108 Mo. App. 718; Cathey v. St.
Louis, etc. R. Co., 149 Mo. App.
134; Neuer v. Metropolitan St. R.
Co., 143 Mo. App. 402; Shelby v.
Same, 141 Mo. App. 514; Williams
V. St. Louis, etc. R. Co., 119 Mo.
App. 663; Parrott v. Railroad, 140
N. C. 546; Scioto Valley T. Co. v.
Graybill, 29 Ohio C. 0. 95; Graham
V. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 89 S. C. 1;
Entzminger v. Seaboard A. L. R.,
79 S. C. 151; Horn v. Southern R.,
78 S. C. 67; Dagnall v. Same, 69
S. C. 110, 17 Am. Neg. Rep. 667;
Memphis St. R. Co. v. Sliaw, 110
Tenn. 467; Hedge v. St. Louis, etc.
R. Co., 164 Mo. App. 291 ; St. Louis,
etc. R. Co. v. Roberson, 103 Ark
361; Germann v. Great Nortliern R.
Co., 117 Minn. 310; Birmingham R.
& E. Co. V. Baird, 130 Ala. 334, 10
Am. Neg. Rep. 595; Southern
R. Co. V. Wood, 114 Ga. 140, 12 Am.
Neg. Rep. 06; Louisville & N. R.
Co. V. Whitman, 79 Ala. 328, 8 Am.
Neg. Cas. 9; Georgia R. v. Olds, 77
Ga. 673; Head v. Georgia Pac. R.
Co., 79 id. 358, 5 Am. Neg. Cas. 1,
n Am. St. 434; Curl v. Chicago,
etc. R. Co., 63 Iowa 417, 8 Am.
Neg. Cas. 252; Springer T. Co. v.
Smith, 16 Lea 498; Gallena v. Hot
Springs R., 13 Fed. 116; Louisville
& N. R. Co. v. Garrett, 8 Lea 438,
41 Am. Rep. 640, 8 Am. Neg. Cas.
023; Murphy v. Western & A. R,



§ 950]



CAEKIEKS.



m



can only act through natural persons, its officers and servants,
and as it of necessity cuimnits its trains or vehicles absolutely
to the charge of i^ersons of its own appointment, passengers of
necesoity commit to them their safety and comfort in transitu,
the whole power and authority of the corporation, pro liac vice,
IS vested in such employees, and as to such passengers they
are the corporation.^^ Punitive damages are recoverable where
a passenger is carried by the place at which she had told the con-
ductor it was her purpose to leave the train, his negligence being
so gross as to evince an entire want of care and raise the infer''-
ence of fact that, being cognizant of the probable consequences
he was inditferent to them.^° They are also recoverable where'



23 Fed. 637, 8 Am. Neg. Cas. 707;
Fell V. Xortlieni Pac. R. Co., 44 Fed.
248, 8 Am. Neg. Caa. 706, 7 Am.
Neg. Cas. 604; L. & N. R. Co. v.
Ballard, 85 Ky. 307, 7 Am. St. 600;
Wilson V. New Orleans, etc. R. Co.,
63 Miss. 352; Louisville & N. R.
Co. V. Maybin, 66 id. 83, 8 Am. Neg.
Cas. 456; Evans v. St. Louis, etc.
R. Co., 11 Mo. App. 463, 8 Am. Neg.
Cas. 486; Lake Shore, etc. R. Co.
V. Rosenzweig, 113 Pa. 519, 10 Am.
Neg. Cas. 79; Hall v. South Caro-
lina R. Co., 28 S. C. 261; Denver,
etc. R. V. Harris, ]22 U. S. 597, 30
L. ed. 1146; Atlantic, etc. R. Co.
V. Dunn, 19 Ohio St. 102, 2 Am.
Rep. 382; New Orleans, etc. R. Co.
V. Bailey, 40 Miss>. 453; Quigley v.
Central Pac. R. Co., 11 Nev. 350,



Online LibraryJ. G. (Jabez Gridley) SutherlandA treatise on the law of damages : embracing an elementary exposition of the law, and also its application to particular subjects of contract and tort (Volume 3) → online text (page 115 of 132)