Case Name: GILKERSON v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. R. CO.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1914-10-09
Citations: 99 S.C. 426
Docket Number: 8966
Parties: GILKERSON v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. R. CO.
Judges: Messrs. Justices Hydrick and Fraser concur in the opinion of the Court.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 426–431

Head Matter:
8966
GILKERSON v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. R. CO.
(83 S. E. 592.)
Carrier aito Passenger. Duty to Assist Passenger to Alight.
1. Discharging Passengers at Destination. — Duty to Awaken Sleeting Passenger. — Where a passenger, when paying his fare, told the conductor that he was very tired and probably would not be awake when the train reached his destination at 4 o’clock in the morning, and requested the conductor to see that he was awake, which the conductor promised to do, the company was liable for the conductor’s failure to awaken him, by reason whereof he was carried several miles beyond the station and compelled to walk back, it not being a case where the passenger was attempting' to convert an ordinary coach into a sleeping apartment, but merely a case where he was afraid he would be overcome by sleep involuntarily on account of his physical condition, and it is the duty of a conductor to render assistance to a passenger in order that he may alight from the train at the proper time when his physical condition renders such assistance necessary and the conductor has knowledge of such fact.
2. Where a conductor' has notice that a passenger on a day coach is wearied, and liable to be overcome by sleep, the conductor’s promise to awaken him, if he should be asleep on arrival of the car at his destination, in order that he might then leave the car, is incidental to his duty to render assistance to passengers, and within the scope of his employment.
3. A railway company is liable to a passenger for damages arising from his being negligently carried beyond his destination, where its servant and conductor had notice that the passenger would probably need assistance to awaken him at time he should leave the train, and after promising such assistance, failed to render same.
Messrs. Justices Watts and Gage, dissenting.
Before Rice, J., Florence, April, 1913.
Reversed.
From a direction of a verdict for the defendant, in an action by Y. S. Gilkerson against Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., plaintiff appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion.
Messrs. J. W. Ragsdale and Whiting & Baker, for the appellant,
submit: Failure to state reasons for directing a verdict has been held reversible error: 38 Cyc. 1588; 95 Mich. 22; 54 N. W. 693; 45 Mich. 410; 8 N. W. 79. Duty to passenger: 53 S. C. 210; 31 S. E. 224; 75 S. C. 286; 83 S. C. 454; 77 S. C. 371. Continuance of relation as carrier and passenger: 2 Hutch. Carriers 1171; 105 N. W. 151; '2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 875. Where carrier’s agents undertake to give information, they must do so correctly: 93 S. C. 535 ; 91 S. C. 71; 75 S. C. 286; 86 S. C. 528. Information as to dangers of place where he left train: 75 S. C. 286; 94 S. C. 287; 38 S. C. 29; 86 S. C. 110. Distinguished: 72 S. C. 343. Evidence of recklessness: 90 S. C. 358; 71 S. C. 76. Care due passenger: 92 S. C. 180.
Messrs. E. L. Willcox, McNeill & Oliver and N M. Wet-more, for respondent,
submit: No duty of carrier to awaken a sleeping passenger in order to advise him that his destination is reached: 50 S. E. 88; 61 Miss. 8; 71 Ga. '710; 61 Miss. 8; 4 Elliott R. R., p. 2532, sec. 1621; 67 S. C. 65, 66; 2 Hutch. Carriers, p. 1316, sec. 1121. Offer to correct mistake: 72 S. C. 343.
October 9, 1914.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chiee Justice Gary.
On the 24th day of August, 1912, the plaintiff purchased a ticket from the defendant, at Florence, S. C., for the purpose of being carried as a passenger to Laurens, S- C. In making the trip, it was necessary, for him to change cars at Sumter, S. C., about 4 o'clock in the morning. There is evidence that when the conductor came to the plaintiff to collect his fare he told the conductor that he was very tired, and probably would not be awake when the train arrived at Sumter, and thereupon requested the conductor to see that he was awake, in order that he might make the necessary change of cars. The conductor promised to comply with his request. When the train arrived at Sumter, the plaintiff had fallen asleep, but the conductor failed to awake him, and he was carried several miles beyond said station.
At the close of the testimony, the defendant's attorney made a motion for the direction of a verdict, on the ground that no duty was imposed by law upon the defendant to see that the plaintiff was awake when the train arrived at Sumter.
The motion was granted and the plaintiff appealed.
The question to be determined is, whether there was error on the part of His Honor, the presiding Judge, in directing a verdict on the ground just stated.
The question is not whether it is the duty, ordinarily, of a conductor to awake a sleeping passenger, but whether it is his duty to render assistance to a passenger, in order that he may alight from the train at the proper time, when his plrysical condition renders such, assistance necessary, and the conductor has knowledge of such fact. Under such circumstances, a promise on the part of the conductor is merely incidental to his duty to render assistance to passengers, in getting off the train when he has notice of the fact, that his aid is needed.
This is not a case in which the passenger was attempting to convert an ordinary coach into a sleeping apartment, but where he was afraid he would be overcome by sleep, involuntarily, on account of his physical condition, and, therefore, sought the assistance of the conductor in order that he might be in a condition to make the necessary change of cars.
The rule is well settled that if there are circumstances which require the'assistance of the conductor to a passenger in alighting from a train, the railroad company is liable if the conductor has notice of such circumstances and fails to render the necessary assistance. Madden v. Ry., 41 S. C. 440, 19 S. E. 951, 20 S. E. 65; Doolittle v. Ry., 62 S. C. 130, 40 S. E. 133.
In the present case, the conductor not only was notified that the plaintiff would probably need his assistance, but he promised to comply with the plaintiff's request.
It is the judgment of this Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed, and the case remanded to that Court for a new trial.
Messrs. Justices Hydrick and Fraser concur in the opinion of the Court.