The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-02-11
ROBERTSON Vs. LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD
 COMPANY.
Passenger for Failure to -Hfrs 70 tfse 3,ion.-Appeal from eEpgs a1 a--

I Sa ae--f et-fs"r 1 plaintiff purchaS -.e.+ ous a. her to transportation a- a las.ar.- from Birmingham to Bell EIlsa e
 that she took passage on a tram run
 ming between these points; that before
 reaching Yolandy, an intermediate
 station, she was told by the conductor
 or the dagman on said train, that the
 car in which she was then riding
 would not go to Bell Ellen, but would go to Brookwood. and that she must
 change cars at Yolandy, and a car in
 front of hers was pointed out by them
 as the car for Bell Ellen; that acting
 on such directions she went into the car designated by them, and as a con- sequence of doing so, she was left in | said car on the side track at Yolandy, while the train including the car in
 which she had previously ridden went
 on to Bell Ellen, discloses a good cause
 of action,
 2. Same; what complaint need not | allege.-In such a case. the graVamen of the action being the defendants
 wrong in leaving the passenger at the intermediate point instead of carrying her to her destination, so far as the
 right of recovery is concerned it is im-
 material whether the alleged wrongful
 act of the conductor or hagman was
 negligently, willfully. knowingly or
 even maliciously done, and the com
 plaint need not use either of these | terms in describing their action. 3. Same; what allegations proper in
 complaint.-Though in such a case the plaintiff is entitled to recover if her | failure to reach her destination was
 caused by any act of the conductor Sr
 fagman. she may, for the purpose of ! fixing the amount of her damages aver
 and prove that they acted wilfuIly and
 maliciously, or with circumstances of aggravation.
 1. Same; what proper defense in.-
 In such case, the general issue is the
 only proper plea If defendants wrong
 had any causal connection with the re-
 suit complained of, it is of no conse-
 quence that the plaintiff could have
 avoided the result by making other inquiries as to the proper car for her
 to take, or anything of that sort. The plaintiff had the right to rely implic- itly on what the trainmen told her in
 this connection. and to act according l ly, and consequently there is no room
 for pleas of contributory negligence. 5. Passenger; changing cars and fail ing to reach destination, when carrier lliable.-WheTe a passenger with a ticket entitling her to be carried be- tween two points embarks on a car
 running between these points, and be- fore arriving at her destination,
 changes into another car. which though up to that time forming a part of the train on which she was then riding, is left, with her in 1t. at an intermedi- ate station. and she thereby fails to reach her destination, the carrier is liable to her if the change of cars was made at the instance of, or in obedience to instructions from the conductor or fagman on the train.
 G. Same; when carrier not liable In such case if the passenger changes into the car of her own motion, and without fault or induoement on the part of the tFainmen. in the mistaken
 belief that 1t, and not the car in which she had previously ridden. would so to her destination, and in consequence