Court Opinion

ID: 9810771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:58:37.190284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:12.341663
License: Public Domain

MerrimoN, J.,
(dissenting). I do not concur in the judgment of the court in this case, and it being a case of some practical importance, I will state the grounds of my dissent.
One of the chief purposes of railroads is orderly, safe and prompt expedition in travel. It is the duty of the owners of such roads, whether persons or corporations, to provide and employ the best means in all respects to accomplish this important end. To do this, requires an immense outlay of capital, and very thorough organization and promptitude. The social and business interests, the spirit, of the age in which -we live, and our progressive civilization demand and require such expedition, secured by such means; and the law recognizes and provides for it, and for in its encouragement, in a vast variety of ways. It holds the owners of such roads to a high measure of amenability and responsibility. It likewise requires those who travel upon such roads and thusEaccept their benefits, to pay promptly, and just compensation therefor, to be orderly and reasonably prompt in all things about such travel, and to submit to reasonable regulations and restraints in connection therewith, in order that the convenience, comfort, safety and social business interests of the passenger may be cared for *517and promoted, directly and indirectly, and the general purpose mentioned, subserved. There are mutual duties and obligations between such owners and those who travel .upon their roads, and these, in their extent, are just as binding on one side as the other.
Among the duties of a passenger over railroads, is that to get on the train, carrying passengers, at proper times and places designated, with reasonable promptness — that is, as quickly as this can be done safely, employing the facilities provided for doing so, these being safe.
Another duty in that connection is, that he shall pay his fare for so-travelling before he goes on the train, if this shall be required, taking evidence of this fact, usually called a “ ticket.” This is reasonable with a view to promptitude, as well as business order. Or, if he does not do so, he should go on the train prepared, with the money to pay his fare with reasonable promptness when the. conductor shall call for it. He must have the money in hand for this purpose, or so near about him in the hands of another, as that he will not delay the conductor unreasonably under the circumstances, and thus derange the course of business in collecting fares and in other respects on the tram while it is rapidly moviug on the way. It is but juct that the passenger should be reasonably prompt in these, respects and if he is not, that he be put off the train as an intruder obstructing the course of business, and impairing the convenience, safety and expedition of other passengers, as well as interfering with the rights of the ownérs of the róad, and those of others not on the train depending more or less upon the promptitude of the train in reaching its destination. The authorities on the train must be circumspect, careful and prompt to keep time and secure expedition. It is unreasonable in every view, as it seems to me, to allow the passenger, without money, under the circumstances in this case, as of rig'ht, to go from one car to another on the train while ' *518moving on the way, to get his fare from a gentleman in the rear car.”
These views seem to me just and reasonable, looking at the rights of the individual passenger, the rights of all other passengers on the,train, the rights of the carrier and the general good of the public as subserved by public carriers.
In fhis case, the plaintiff got on the defendant’s passenger train at one station on its road to ride to another four miles distant. He did not prepay the fare, and he went on the train knowing that he did not have the money with which to pay it when called for, nor did he pay it when called for by the conductor in the course of collecting fares. If this were all, it is obvious that the conductor had the right to put him off as an intruder.
But while saying that he had no ticket ortnoney to pay the fare, he said “ be would get the fare from a gentleman in the rear car, if he (the conductor) would allow him to do so, but he did not say that any gentleman had promised to pay it.
Was it the duty of the conductor to give him time, as of right, to go into the rear car, and get the money? I think not. The train was the passenger train, moving, it must be taken, ata rapid rate of speed; the distance was four miles; about half that distance had been passed over before the conductor, in the course of his duties in collecting fare, reached the plaintiff ; the plaintiff had no ticket or money to pay the fare. The presumption, as to the conductor, it may. be fairly said, was that the plaintiff would pay the fare until he refused, or failed to pay — then the presumption was against him. He was bound to know the necessity of reasonable promptitude on his side as to the fare. He did not have the money to pay it. Then why did he not get it before he got on the train ? Failing in this, why did he not get it after he got on the train, and have it ready ? If for any reason he was *519not to be trusted with it, why did he not get near to the person who was to pay it for him, so as not to create delay, or strong suspicion that he did not intend to pay it? It was his plain duty to do this. As he did not, in the absence of assurance other than his own declaration — “ that he would get the fare ” in the way indicated, unsupported by the circumstances, but in fact discredited by them, there was strong evidence for the inference on the part of the conductor that he was an intruder, intending to get the ride without paying for it. It does not appear that he was responsible, or that the conductor knew him, and that he was trustworthy, if such circumstances could, in any case, be urged in his favor.
But it is said, that nevertheless, the conductor ought to have given him time to go in the rear car and get the money to pay the fare. The conductor had no reasonable assurance that he would or could get it — the circumstances and facts before him went strongly to show that be would not. If the conductor had allowed him to go into the rear car, before he could have done so and returned to the conductor in the course of his business, or failing to get the money, before the conductor could have put him off, .the station to which he was going would probably have been reached, and he would have gotten his ride without paying for it, and could have laughed at the success of his trick and the unbusiness-like credulity of the conductor.
There was no time for such delay in this, or any like case on passenger trains. A rule that allows a passenger to go from one car to another to get money to pay his fare, under the circumstances of this case, is, in my judgment, unreasonable. Such a rule affords opportunity for frequent successful frauds upon public carriers where parties, and often times irresponsible parties, want to travel short distances. In a few minutes the train passes from one station to an*520other; and the collection of fares must be prompt and passengers required to prepare for prompt payment. The train cannot be delayed to collect fares before it starts on the way ; this would delay and impede travel in a way not allowable. The more reasonable and just rule would be to require the passenger to be prepared, especially when the distance is short, as in this case, to pay his fare promptly, or, failing to do so, to run the hazard of being put off the train.
If one passenger has the right, as allowed in this case, two, a half dozen, have the same right, and all might claim and exercise it I
It seems to me, with all due deference to my brethren, that there is no real necessity for the rule as laid down by the court in this case; that the just and reasonable rule in such cases is, that the passenger must prepay his fare, and have his “ ticket ” showing the fact, or he must have the money in hand to pay it on the train with reasonable promptness when called for, or in the hands of another, so near to him as not to delay the conductor in collecting it.
It is true that a witness said on the trial, he'would have paid the plaintiff’s fare, if he had been called upon on the train in a rear car, but the conductor did not know this fact. It was not made known to him. The defendant did not say that the witness had promised to let him have the money, and the circumstances, as I have indicated, went strongly to show that he would not. The rule of law must be applied in the light of the facts as they appeared to the conductor, and the true rule is such as to secure justice to the passenger and the carrier alike, in view of the facts as they appeared at the time.
The conductor seems to have been abrupt, insolent, rather than arbitrary. We cannot see all that may have prompted his action. Impoliteness is not to be commended, but it cannot change the rule of law .applicable here. Conductors ought to be reasonable, just, patient, polite to all, and gen*521tlemen under all circumstances; my observation is that they generally are so. If, sometimes they are not, it is to their discredit, in the estimation of good people, and to the injury of their employers.
Per Curiam. ' Judgment affirmed.