Court Opinion

ID: 9810321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:46:20.706217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:34.761239
License: Public Domain

BRowN, J.,
dissenting: The following issues were submitted to the jury:
1. Was the plaintiff wrongfully ejected from the train of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: “Yes.”
*5112. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant? Answer: “$1,000.”
I am of opinion that’his Honor erred in not giving the first of the defendant’s prayers for instruction. I am further of opinion that his Honor should have instructed the jury to answer the first issue “No.”
The evidence is that the plaintiff had a mileage book on which he had taken a ticket to Madison. When he got to Madison he was told at the car steps that there were no accommodations to be had, and he concluded to go on to Walnut Cove. He made no effort whatever to get another ticket on his mileage book. He did not ask the conductor for time to get a ticket, and he did not go to the ticket office. The train stayed at Madison for a very short time. When the conductor came around for tickets, the plaintiff presented his mileage book and insisted that the conductor should pass him on it.
It is well settled that a mileage book is not good for passage unless the purchaser complies with its conditions.- The conductor demanded 35 cents fare to Walnut C'ove. The judge instructed the jury that the plaintiff was not rightfully a passenger upon the train at the time in question, and that the conductor was not required to take out of the plaintiff’s mileage book the mileage equal to the distance between Madison and Walnut Cove. His Honor should have instructed the jury, in view of that ruling, that upon the plaintiff’s own evidence they should answer the first issue “No”; that he was not wrongfully ejected.
I admit that a passenger may be rightfully ejected from a train and at the same time recover damages for the manner in which that ejection was accomplished, but no issue embodying that principle was tendered by the plaintiff or submitted to the jury in this case.
His Honor instructed the jury under the second issue that if plaintiff was wrongfully ejected from the train, the plaintiff would be entitled by way of actual or compensatory damages to recover such amount as the jury said would reasonably compensate him for any physical injury or inconvenience, mental suffering or humiliation which he endured by reason of such ejection. This was error, because his Honor had already instructed the jury that the plaintiff was wrongfully on the train; that he was not rightfully a passenger’, and that the conductor had a right to eject him. Consequently, whatever humiliation the plaintiff suffered by reason of such ejection was the result of the plaintiff’s own misconduct. It was his duty to pay his fare when the conductor demanded it, and he would have been saved any humiliation and mortification such as he complains of. Therefore, I say that his Honor injected an element of damage for which the plaintiff has no right to recover.
*512I admit tbat according to tbe plaintiff’s own testimony there is some evidence of unnecessary force and violence in ejecting him. Inasmuch as the plaintiff was rightfully ejected, this is the only element of damage which should be considered by the jury; that is to say, whatever damage ensued from such excessive force.
I am of opinion that an issue should have been submitted as follows: Notwithstanding that the plaintiff was rightfully' ejected vfrom the train, was excessive force and violence used in such ejection? It was the plaintiff’s duty to tender such an issue. All the evidence in this case, except that of the plaintiff himself, shows conclusively that no more force was applied by the conductor than was reasonably necessary to eject a man who was resisting such ejection. It is a very easy matter for the plaintiff to say that the conductor jerked him. It is difficult to get a man out of a seat when he is resisting without jerking him. There is not one scintilla of evidence that the plaintiff was in the least degree injured in any way.
The contention that the conductor violated the statute and put the plaintiff off at an unsuitable place should not have been submited to the jury as an element of damage. I do not say this because Sharp’s siding was a suitable place for the plaintiff to be compelled to spend the night, but for the reason that the plaintiff himself testifies that he immediately got back on the train and paid his fare to Walnut Cove and spent the night there. The wrong which the statute was intended to remedy was putting a person off at some practically uninhabitable place where no lodgings could be had and compelling him to stay there an indefinite time. It was not intended to' cover a case where a passenger is rightfully ejected, but gets back on the train immediately and pays his fare and goes on to- the next station.
I admit that this Court has decided that it will not interfere with the damages, but leave it to the judges of the Superior Court to set aside the verdicts when they are excessive. A perusal of the facts in this ease will show that the plaintiff was in the wrong from the beginning to the end, and that the verdict rendered by the jury was grossly excessive, assuming that the conductor did exercise a little more force than-was necessary. In this case I am convinced that all the force exercised by the conductor was brought about by the plaintiff’s resistance. There is no evidence that the conductor used a harsh word or indulged in any abusive epithets. He and the flagman dragged or pulled the plaintiff down the aisle because the plaintiff forced them to do it.
It is suggested in the opinion of the Court that the only assignment of error properly made is the one relating to the nonsuit, and that, *513therefore, the Court will not consider the others. I do not agree with the Court in that particular.
The third assignment of error is in these words: “The action of his Honor in declining to give to the jury defendant’s special prayer No. 1 is noted in defendant’s third exception, page 75.” By reference to page 75, it is seen that prayer No. 1 covers a page and a half of the record. I know of no decision of this Court which requires that the prayers for instruction shall be' copied in the assignments of error. In these assignments the number of the prayer and the page of the record is given. In my opinion this is all that can be reasonably required of an appellant in respect to the prayers for instruction.
If it is required to reprint them entirely in the assignment of error, it is not only a work of supererogation, but it makes the record extremely bulky and largely increases the expense of printing. All of our decisions, as I understand them, refer to assignments of error relating to the evidence where none of it is set out, no page of the record is given, and the Court would be left to grope through the record and find the exceptions without assistance.
Walker, J., concurs in this opinion.