Lawrence v. Pullman's Palace Car Co.

144 Mass. 1 | Mass. | 1887

Devens, J.

The gist of the plaintiff’s claim is that he was wrongfully refused accommodation in the sleeping car of the defendant, in coming from Baltimore to New York, by the defendant’s servants; and that, on declining to leave the car, he was ejected therefrom. His argument assumes that it was for the defendant to determine under what circumstances a passenger should be allowed to purchase a berth, and, incidentally, the other accommodations afforded by the sleeping car. An examination of the contract with the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, by virtue of which the cars .owned by the defendant were conveyed over its railroad, shows that, while these cars were to be furnished by the defendant corporation, they were so furnished to be used by the railroad company “for the transportation of passengers; ” that its employees were to be governed by the rules and regulations of the railroad company, such as it might adopt, from time to time, for the government of its own employees. While, therefore, the defendant company was to collect the fares for the accommodations furnished by its cars, keep them in proper order, and attend upon the passengers, it was for the railroad company to determine who should be entitled to enjoy the accommodations oí these cars, and by what regulation this use of the cars should be governed. The defendant company could, not certainly furnish a berth in its cars until the person requesting it had become entitled to transportation by the railroad company as a passenger, and he must also be entitled to the transportation for such routes, distances, or under such circumstances, as the railroad company should determine to be those under which the defendant company would be authorized to furnish him with its accommodations. The defendant company could only contract with a passenger when he was of such a class that the railroad company permitted the contract to be made.

The railroad company had classified its trains, fixing the terms upon which persons should become entitled to transportation in the sleeping cars, and the cars in which such transportation would be afforded. It was its regulation that, between Baltimore and New York, this accommodation should only be furnished to those holding a ticket over the whole route. It does not appear that this was an unreasonable rule,, but, whether it was so or not, it was the regulation of the railroad company, and not of the defendant. The evidence was, “ that the ordinary train conductors of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company have full and entire authority over the porters and conductors of the Pullman cars, in regard to the matter of determining who shall ride in the cars, and under what circumstances, and in regard to- every other thing, except ” the details of care, &c. The defendant’s servant, the plaintiff having entered the sleeping car, informed him that his “ split tickets,” as they are termed, were not such as would entitle him to purchase a berth, and that he could sell only to those holding “ through passage tickets, intact, to the point to which sleeping accommodations were desired.” The plaintiff was in no way disturbed until the train conductor (who was not the defendant’s servant) came into the car, informed the plaintiff that his tickets were not such as to entitle him to purchase the sleeping-car ticket, and several times urged the plaintiff to leave the sleeping car, which the plaintiff refused to do. Whether accommodation was rightly refused to the plaintiff or not in the sleeping car, the refusal was the act of the railroad company’s servant, and not of the defendant’s, whose duty it was to be guided by the train conductor.

The ejection of the plaintiff was also the act of the railroad company, and not of the defendant. It is the contention of the plaintiff, that, even if he might be ejected from the car, it was done in an improper manner. The plaintiff testified that he was waiting for a “show of force,” after his repeated refusals to leave the car. This exhibition of force was made by the train conductor, who put his hand upon him, when the plaintiff rose and yielded thereto. The defendant’s conductor took hold of the plaintiff’s arm when he rose, and aided the plaintiff in crossing the platform of the cars, but the evidence does not show that he used or exercised any force whatever. Even if he had used force upon the plaintiff, he was not doing the business of the defendant company; he was assisting the train conductor in the duty he was performing as servant of the railroad company. To conduct him across from one car to another in the manner described by the plaintiff himself, after he had repeatedly refused to leave the car, affords no evidence of any removal in an improper manner. The act of the defendant’s servant was in every way calculated to assist the plaintiff in his transit from one car. to another.

Nor is the fact important that the car into which the plaintiff was passed subsequently became cold, even if it were possible to hold the defendant responsible for the act of its servant. So far as appears by the evidence, there is no reason to believe that, when the plaintiff entered the car, it was not in fit condition to receive passengers; and, by the contract, the management of it and the duty of furnishing fuel were entirely with the railroad company, and not with the defendant.

Judgment on the verdict.