The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1891-04-14

it would be a denial of justice to per-
NIT a common carrier to exhibit such
| arbitrary and willful neglect of the
| duties it has assumed, and such disre-
gard of the rights of others. Yet such
IS the effect if, without adequate ex-
cuse, it should be allowed so to act,
with no other penalty than refunding
the price of the ticket and the price
paid for another conveyance, since the
latter would be demanded in very few
cases. and only when the destination is
at a short distance. The effect of such
ruling would be to license the common
| carrier to furnish car or not, and to
stop at it's regular stations or not, at its
arbitrary pleasure, and not as a duty
required by law. The refunding the
price of the ticket would amount, in
most cases, to nothing, as the passenger
would usually buy a ticket by the next
train. Yet the inconvenience, annoy
ance, and injustice to the travelling
public by such detentiOns would be
great and difficult to estimate. A case
| exactly in point is Heirn ". McCaughan,
80 Miss. II, where it is held that
exemplary damages were recoverable
against a common carrier there a
steamboat company in an action of
tort for violation of duty in willfully
| refusing to land it's vessel, and receive
the plaintiff as a passenger, according
to it's advertisement. In Railroad Co.
v. Hurst, SO Miss. $50, which was a
case somewhat similar, where the train
ran by the regular station without
stopping to put off Gnstead of to re-
ceive) a passenger, the court affirm the
case last cited, and say it is 1.-THE right
| of the jury in such cases to protect the
public, by punitive damages, against
the negligence, folly, or wickedness
which might otherwise convert these
great public blessings into the most
dangerous nuisances." 1t is the duty
of a common carrier, especially where
it has monopoly; to provide sufficient
cars for the transportation Of all pas
sengers, as we'll as for the carriage of
all freight which it's invitation naturally
brings to it, as was held in Branch V.
Railroad Co., II N. @. 347. Indeed,
the identical facts of the present case
are cited by Judge ROdman as an hypo-
thetical illustration in that opinion.
Page 351. No regard for their own
profits or convenience will justify the
corporation in having only sufficient
cars for the ordinary amount of freight
and travel, leaving the public to bear
the inconvenience and loss, when, On
unusual occasions, the volume of bust
ness may swell beyond the average.
| Common carriers could not be held
liable for an unforeseen and extraor-
binary rush of business not within
reasonable calculation, but when the
| additional volume of travel or freight
is such as, with reasonable foresight,
could be expected, it is the duty of the
company to have the extra cars fur
nished. With the modern facilities of
telegraph and telephone, the occasion
of an unusual number of passengers or
quantity of freight can be promptly
notified and provided for. If this is
not done, it is gross and willful negli-
gence, and the company should not be
allowed to find it's profit in a willfUl
and reckless disregard of the rights of
the public, and of it's own duties. 1t
may be that on the whole testimony
the defendant could show sufficient
matter of excuse, but the plaintiff was
entitled to have the phase of the evil
dence set out in his prayer for instruc-
ton presented to the jury. Taking
that evidence to be true, and nothing
else appearing, he was entitled to re
cover punitive damages.
Error.