55 Mo. 201 | Mo. | 1874
delivered the opinion of the court.
This suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover damar ges for injuries charged to have been sustained by plaintiff, by the acts of the agents conducting a train of cars of the defendant, in wrongfully ejecting plaintiff from the cars of defendant when he was a passenger thereon. The petition in substance charges, that the defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of this State, and is the owner of a railroad with locomotives and cars thereon, by which it conveys passengers for hire; that on the 11th day of July, 1871, plaintiff got on the ears of defendant being run and used on the line of said railroad, at the town or station of Galhoun, to be carried and eonyeyed as a passenger to the town of "Windsor, situate on said road; that plaintiff at the time paid defendant for such passage and conveyance the sum of fifty-five cents, which sum was received and accepted by defendant; that defendant thereby then received plaintiff into and upon said cars as a passenger and undertook to transport him as aforesaid; that afterwards on said day, when said cars were in motion and had reached a point about one mile distant from Calhoun along the line of defendant’s road, said defendant, unlawfully intending to injure plaintiff and to put him to great trouble and expense, wholly neglected and refused to con vey plaintiff to the town of Windsor, but caused said cars to be stopped at a point upon the line of said railroad, distant from any dwelling house or regular stopping place on the line of said road, and forcibly and with violence ejected plaintiff from, and refused to let him re-enter, said cars, although plaintiff offered to pay defendant any reasonable additional sum necessary and right, as a compensation for such passage.
The petition alleges, that plaintiff was greatly abused, beat, bruised, choked, kicked and wounded by defendant, the said defendant wrongfully intending him, the said plaintiff, to be put to great trouble and expense; that said defendant so intending caused said cars to move off and leave plaintiff, unattended and weak from his wounds and exhaustion, to make
The defendant answered, and denied that on the 11th day of July, 1871, the plaintiff got on to defendant’s cars and paid the sum of fifty-five cents for his passage to the town of Windsor, as charged in the petition; but avers that on the contrary plaintiff refused to pay his fare, etc. It is then averred in the answer, that at the time stated in the petition plaintiff got on the car of defendant at said town of Calhoun, without having purchased a ticket, and without a pass; and after the train was in motion the conductor of the defendant on said oar inquired of him where he desired to go. Plaintiff replied, to Windsor. He was then informed of the regular fare to Windsor, which plaintiff refused to pay; whereupon the conductor ejected plaintiff from the car, using no more foree than was necessary for said purpose.
The answer then denies, that plaintiff was in any manner unjustly treated or injured by defendant or its employees in the discharge of their duties, or that he was put to any expense or trouble by any unlawful act of defendant; but charges, that plaintiff was so put off of the cars because of his refusal to pay the full and regular fare from and to the points named; denies that plaintiff was kicked, beat, bruised, choked or wounded, in the act of so putting him off from the cars as aforesaid, or that he was damaged thereby.
The plaintiff replied to this answer, admitting that he got on the car without first paying his fare; but denies all other affirmative allegations in the answer. A trial was had before a jury at the December term of said court for the year 1871. The jury after hearing the evidence, and the instructions of the court, found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and assessed his damages at the sum of $3500. The defendant in due time filed a motion for a new trial, which being overruled, it excepted and appealed to this court.
The evidence on the part of the plaintiff tended to prove, that
The plaintiff testified that the kicks in his face fractured his jaw-bone, and broke out of some of his teeth. The plaintiff, while testifying, was asked to state the effect the treatment received from the men on the train had upon his health up to the time of the trial? This question was objected to by the defendant, because the plaintiff was not competent, and, the objection being overruled, he at the time excepted.
The evidence further tends to show, that plaintiff was injured in his throat, and that his jaw was fractured; that it inflamed, and had to be lanced ; and that portions of the bones were scaled off and came opt, and that it is still unsound and will likely kill him unless an operation is performed and other parts of the bone rémoved. The evidence on the part of the plaintiff also tended to prove, that he was put off from the cars late in the evening, when there was no station or house on the road, and that the same conductor is still retained on the train of defendant.
The defendant introduced evidence which tended to-prove that plaintiff had paid forty-five cents for his fare, and refused to pay any more, the fare being sixty cents ; that after he refused to pay any more, the amount jiaid was offered back to him, which he refused to receive; that the money was placed on the seat by him, the cars were stopped, and plaintiff was put off by the conductor and others, who came to his assistance; that plaintiff resisted, and that it took some force to get him off, but he was not struck or bruised until he was off of the cars; that after plaintiff was put off from the cars, -he held to the railing on the platform and grabbed at the conductor’s face, caught and tore the conductor’s hat, when the conductor kicked at him; that when plaintiff let go of the railing he fell
1st. “If the jury believe from the evidence, that the plaintiff paid, or offered to pay, the conductor in charge of the train, when requested, the usual fare from Calhoun to the place of destination, to-wit: "Windsor; and the conductor received the same, or refused to receive the same, and forcibly put plaintiff out of the car without lawful provocation, then the jury will find for the plaintiff, and assess the damages at such sum as they from the evidence believe will compensate plaintiff fr the injuries sustained.”
2nd. “The jury are further instructed, that if they believe from the evidence, that the defendant by its conductor, agents or servants, unlawfully, wrongfully and maliciously put the plaintiff out of the cars and off the train of said defendant, as averred in the petition of said plaintiff in this cause, then in addition to assessing damages by way of compensation for injuries received by said plaintiff, they may assess such further amount by way of exemplary damages against defendants, as the jury in their judgment may see proper, ndt exceeding the sum of five thousand dollars, as claimed in jolaintiff’s petition.”
3rd. “The jury are fm-ther instructed, that if they believe fron the testimony that the plaintiff did not pay, or offer to pa,j, tht conductor in charge of the train his fare from Calhoun tc Windsor, or place of testination, and refused to pay the same
4th. “If the jury believe from the evidence, that the plain, tiff paid, or offered to pay, to the conductor of the train the customary and usual fare from Calhoun to Windsor, the place he designed to stop at, and the conductor refused to receive the same, and refused to give plaintiff reasonable time to get tbe money out of his pocket, or from bis friend there on said traiii, with intent to pay said regular and usual fare; and if the jury further believe from tbe evidence, that said conductor, agents or servants of said defendant, maliciously and violently put said plaintiff out of the ear and off said train, then the defendant is liable and the jury should find for the plaintiff.”
The defendant objected to said instructions, and bis said objection to each of said instructions being overruled, he duly excepted. The court then, at the request of the defendant, instructed the jury as follows:
1st. “The court charges the law to he, that if any passenger on the train of any railroad in this state shall refuse to pay his fare, or shall behave in an offensive manner, or shall repeatedly violate the rules of the company owning such railroad, it shall be lawful for the conductor of the train, and the servants of
2nd. “If the jury find from the evidence, that the plaintiff refused to pay the established fare when first requested so to do by the conductor, he from that time forfeited his right to longer remain in the cars, and any subsequent offer on his part to pay his fare would not in law compel the company to transport him further.”
3rd. “If the jury find from the evidence, that a trespass or an assault was committed on the person of the plaintiff by the employees of the defendant after said plaintiff had been ejected from defendant’s card, the said employees and not the company are responsible for the loss and damages resulting therefrom.
There were other instructions given on the part of the defendant,which it is not necessary, to a full understanding of the points arising in the case, to recite. The court refused the . following instructions asked for on the part of 'the defendant, .to which the defendant saved exceptions, to-wit:
1st. “If the jury find from the evidence, that the employees of the defendant, in ejecting the plaintiff from the cars for the non-payment of his fare, wantonly used unnecessary force, they, and not the company, are responsible for the consequences.”
2nd. “The court instructs the jury, that if they believe from the evidence that the plaintiff was hurt by the effect of a kick given him by one Hamilton, who was a conductor on the cars of defendant, and that said Hamilton gave him said kick willfully, and of his own free will and accord, then the defendant is not responsible for any injury that may be the result of said willful act, and they will so find.”
The defendant in its motion for a new trial set forth as canses therefor all the usual causes set forth, as well as the rulings of the court herein before excepted to.
The points presented for the consideration of this court are the following :
Second. — That tbe defendant is not liable for tbe acts of its agents, where tbe acts were not done in tbe line of their duties, or when tbe acts done are malicious or oppressive.
Third. — That the court erred in instructing the j ury that they were authorized to find exemplary or punitive damages.
Tbe evidence tending to prove that Carr bad offered to pay tbe balance claimed by tbe conductor, while the conductor was putting or attempting to put plaintiff off from tbe train, was not proper evidence to show that plaintiff was from that time entitled to remain on tbe car, notwithstanding bis refusal to pay tbe fare demanded in the first place, and the court so instructed the jury. And it is not pretended, that tbe evidence tending to prove that the plaintiff bad made an effort to pro cure a ticket before entering tbe car would entitle him to remain on tbe cars without the payment of bis fare. Tbe instructions of tbe court also contradict that supposition; but tbe evidence was proper to show tbe good faith of the plaintiff in entering the car, and as being a part of tbe transaction being investigated and to characterize tbe conduct of all of tbe parties engaged, and it was evidently for this purpose only that tbe evidence was admitted, which is plainly indicated by the instructions given by tbe court. Tbe jury could not have been misled by the evidence.
It is contended by tbe defendant, that the plaintiff after entering tbe car refused to pay bis fare, and thereby became a wrong-doer, and was not after that entitled to be considered as a passenger, and was therefore a stranger to defendant, so far as its duties were concerned, and that if tbe servants of the plaintiff in putting him off of tbe cars under such circumstan
This statute gives the authority to eject a passenger from the cars who refuses to pay his fare, and directs the manner in which it shall be done, and places the matter within the line of the duties of the conductors of the train, and there can be no doubt in reference to the liability of the company for any injury which might result to a passenger from the negligent or imimproper manner in which the conductor should perform the duty. But it is insisted, that for willful or malicious injuries inflicted by the conductor in the performance of this duty or right the company is not liable. I do not think that this position is tenable. Corporations only act by agencies, and whatever their agents do within the scope of their authority is reallythe act of the corporation; and if the agents, in acting within the scope of their authority, act in a willful or malignant manner and damage ensue, they are certainly responsible, and particularly in cases where they are acting with reference to those to whom the corporation are under obligations by law to treat in a different manner. Hence it has been frequently held, that a conductor on a train on a railroad is acting within the scope of his authority when putting persons of the cars who fail to pay their fare, and if while doing so he act in a willful and malicious manner and injury thereby occur, the railroad company is liable therefor. (Kline vs. Central
It is further contended by the defendant, that from the evidence in this case the injuries of which the plaintiff complains, if committed by the conductor of the train of defendant, were committed in a difficulty and rencounter between the conductor and plaintiff after he was ejected from the car, which was brought about by the fault of plaintiff and wholly unconnected with the act of the agents of defendant in ejecting plaintiff from the car; and that therefore the defendant is not responsible therefor. It is a sufficient answer to this to state, that upon this subject the evidence is conflicting, and the question, as to when the injuries were inflicted whether on the cars or after the plaintiff was off the cars, was properly submitted to the jury, and we cannot interfere with their finding on that subject.
The only remaining question presented for our consideration is as to the propriety of the instruction giveji by the court, by which the jury are told, that, if the conductor and agents of defendant, wrongfully and maliciously put the plaintiff out of the ear, in such case they might, in addition to compensation for the injuries received, assess such further amount by way of exemplary damages, as they in their judgment might deem proper, not exceeding the amount sued for. This presents a question of more difficult solution. The law is now settled in this State at least, and in most of the courts of the different States, that in actions of tort, when the damages complained of have been wilfully, maliciously or wantonly committed, the plaintiff’may recover exemplary or primitive damages.
In the case of McKeon vs. Citizens Railway Co., (42 Mo. 79,) it was doubted whether exemplary damages could be recovered in any case; but from this view of the law Judge Wagner dissented. In a later case decided in this court, (Buckley vs.
The only way, in which corporations can act in the commission of wrong or otherwise, is by and through their agents. The acts of their agents within the scope of their authority are their acts, and it would seem that there could be no good reason why they should not be responsible for the acts of their agents in the discharge of their duties, when performed in a wanton and malicious manner, just as if the act had been done by the corporation itself. In fact, the act) of the agent is the act of the corporation, and in this case the evidence shows, that the conductor, who committed the wanton acts out of which the damages accrued,was at the time of the trial retained by and is still in the employ of the defendant. It will be seen, that the issues of fact in this case were most liberally on the part of the defendant submitted to the jury by the instructions given by the court, and that the instructions refused, with the foregoing view of the case, were properly refused.
The judgment will be affirmed.