delivered the opinion of the Court:
Thе first assignment of error relates to the action of the trial court in permitting the plaintiff to prove the facts and circumstances surrounding the assault. It is the contention of the defendant that the special plea and the joinder of issue thereon raised the single question of justification. The plea alleged that when the motоrman laid hands upon and removed the plaintiff, plaintiff was “blockading the passage of other passengers forward,” and such must have been the finding of the jury to sustain the plea. The evidence of the plaintiff tended to shоw not only that he was not “blockading the passage of other
During plaintiff’s testimony he stаted that immediately after his release by the motorman he assumed the position from which he had been removed. Ilis counsel thereupon moved the court to strike out this statement, which motion was granted, over the objection and exception of the defendant. We quite agree with the learned trial justice that “if he (plaintiff) had a right there originally, it would not malee any difference whether he went back or not.” Moreover, defendant’s witnesses, without objection, testified to the same fact.
We come now to the main question in the case, that is, whether the court’s charge, to which reference has been made, correctly stated the law. While thе duty of common carriers of passengers may not be abridged by rules and regulations, there is no doubt as to the power of such a carrier to make and enforce reasonable rules and regulations having for their оbject the safety and comfort of the traveling public. The rights of a single passenger are not greater nоr less than those of every other passenger. Thus the carrier has a right to make and enforce a rule сonfining a passenger to one seat. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Spiller,
The next and last assignment of error relates tо the question of damages. It first is insisted that there was no proof of damage, and hence that nominal damagеs only should have been allowed. It is seriously contended by appellant that it does not appear thаt the plaintiff suffered any injured feelings, nor that he endured any indignity, humiliation, or wounded pride. One person may be morе sensitive than another, or, stated otherwise, one person may be more callous than another to рublic gaze under embarrassing conditions, but we think the rule of law is that where the circumstances-of such an assault аs is here shown to have taken place are before the jury, the jury may infer that the average person would suffer from the indignity and humiliation. Indeed, to the average person those elements of hurt would be more distressing аnd lasting than the
But, it is insisted, mental suffering unaccompanied by physical injury may not form the basis of damages. The overwhelming weight of authority is to the contrary. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Prentice,
The further contention is made, under this assignment of error, that the charge of thе court upon the question of damages was so vague as to permit the jury to find punitive damages. There is no justification for this contention in the record. Punitive damages were neither claimed by the plaintiff nor permitted to be found by the court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs. Affirmed.