Court Opinion

ID: 9450475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:49:51.272526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:20.959615
License: Public Domain

MARSHALL, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
I respectfully dissent. The majority relies on Louisville & N. R. R. v. Chatters, 279 U.S. 320, 49 S.Ct. 329, 73 L.Ed. 711 (1929). However, the facts in this case are sufficiently distinguishable so that I am compelled to find Chatters not controlling here.
In Chatters the trial court had jurisdiction over both of the carriers. Here it appears the connecting carrier is outside the jurisdiction of the trial court. In Chatters the plaintiff was able to maintain an action against the connecting carrier in the district court in the city where he resided and purchased the ticket. Here the plaintiff, in order to obtain redress, would be relegated to traveling back to the area where she had been subjected to the brutal beating by law enforcement officials.
In Chatters the limitation clause printed on the ticket read “In selling this ticket and checking baggage thereon the selling carrier acts only as agent and is not responsible beyond its own lines.” The limitation clause in this case is not nearly as precise:
Company reserves right to seat all passengers. Not responsible for damage to or loss of checked baggage to exceed $25 unless insured. No responsibility accepted for unchecked baggage. In selling this ticket and checking baggage thereon the selling carrier acts only as agent and is not responsible beyond its own line and does not assume expense of transfer at any junction point or guarantee any connections.
Any casual reading of this limitation by the layman would lead to the conclusion that the limitation is upon recovery for loss of or damage to baggage.
In this case there is a complete lack of proof that appellee ever knew she was to be transported “beyond * * * [appellant’s] own line.” There is, of course, no testimony that anyone told her she was to use other carriers during the trip. She was told that she would change buses in Raleigh, North Carolina. But instead of being told that this would be due to a change of carriers she was told the change was necessary because the buses had to be cleaned after such a long journey.
The ticket coupons did not give any notice that there would be a change of carriers, or that appellant lines would not take her all the way to Montgomery. Each coupon had spaces to be filled in after the following printed symbols: “From,” “To,” “Via,” “Orig.” and “Dest.” The ticket was filled in automatically by a machine. The ticket purchased by appellee contained the following notations filled in by the machine: First coupon: From New York to Washington, D. C. via STs; Second coupon: From Washington, D. C. to Richmond, Virginia via VAT; Third coupon: Richmond, Va. to Fayetteville, N. C. via CCC; Fourth coupon: Fay-etteville, N. C., to Augusta, Ga. via QCC; Fifth coupon: From Augusta, Ga. to Columbus, Ga. via SOS; Sixth coupon: From Columbus, Ga. to Montgomery, Ala. via [not filled in]. The other six coupons for use on the return trip were in reverse with similar notations.
Certainly the average person could not be charged with knowing that STs meant Safeway Trails, Inc.; that VAT meant Virginia Stage Lines, Inc.; that CCC meant Carolina Coach Co.; that QCC meant Queens City Coach Co.; that SOS meant Southern Stages, Inc.; or what the blank space meant in the last coupon. *821Indeed, appellee when cross-examined as to what she understood SOS to mean, replied “I know it is a distress sign, that is all I know SOS to mean.” On the ■other hand, each coupon had printed •clearly on the top: “Issued by Trailways New York Terminal”; the map of the United States with the words “National Trailways Bus System” across it; and “Orig. New York, N. Y.” and “Dest. Montgomery, Ala.”
Appellant’s exhibit E is a timetable consisting of 107 pages entitled “Trailways Bus Time Tables.” One cover shows a picture of four buses with “Trailways East Coast Limiteds” printed underneath followed by the following in large bold type:
“Trailways New Fleet provides Thru-Limiteds between New York-Raleigh-Charlotte-Augusta-Tampa Boston-New York-Washington-Norfolk and Raleigh Norfolk-Chattanooga-Memphis.
N orf olk-Montgomery-D alias Norfolk-Washington-Scranton. Raleigh-Atlanta-Dallas Miami-Atlanta-Cincinnati-Chicago and Miami-Dallas”
The back cover shows the insignia on the map of the United States and pictures of two buses marked “Trailways.” Inside are detailed timetables covering 2800 cities covering the area bounded by Portland, Maine, Chicago, Illinois, New Orleans, Louisiana and Miami, Florida. In the center of the timetable is a map covering the area and containing the following legend: “Trailways Eastern Lines Including Connecting Trailways Lines”; below is the word “Thruliner” beside a double line and “Connecting Routes” beside a single line. An examination of the map reveals that appellee’s route followed the double line — the route of the “Thru-liner.”
A reading of appellee’s testimony of the colloquy between her and appellant’s ticket agent reveals that in requesting a reserved seat for the entire trip she assumed she was dealing with a single carrier. The limitation printed on the back of the coupon had no significance unless appellee knew or should have known that the trip would be over lines “beyond its own line.” Cf. New York, N. H. & Hart. R. R. v. Nothnagle, 346 U.S. 128, 136-37, 73 S.Ct. 986, 97 L.Ed. 1500 (1953). There is positive testimony that she did not know this. There is no evidence that she should have known this.
The bus driver was the catalyst in the incident that resulted in injuries to ap-pellee and this incident arose when ap-pellee refused to change her seat on the bus while in Georgia. This is exactly what she was afraid of.1 Appellee, in testifying as to this conversation with the ticket agent, stated: “It was just general conversation about the bus. I was particular about reservations, whether I would be assured a reservation on the bus throughout the trip. This was my main worry, and whether there were any problems, because having read other things, I wanted to be assured, it was my maiden trip. He said that on the interstate buses you get reservations and there is no problem.”
I would, therefore, affirm the judgment below.

. Sufficient to say tliat her concern was not -without foundation. Enforced racial segregation on interstate buses was so widespread as to cause national and international concern. See Discrimination in Operations of Interstate Motor Carriers of Passengers, 80 M.O.O. 743 (1901).