The opinion of the court was delivered by
On October 29, 1885, Benjamin Rice, a colored man, purchased of the ticket agent of the Southern Kansas Ráilway Company, at Olathe, in this state, for fifty cents, a limited railroad ticket to Kansas City, Missouri, and return, good for three days, the date of issue being stamped on the back. On that day-he was carried as a passenger by the railway company upon one of its passenger trains from Olathe to Kansas City. The “going coupon” of the ticket was torn off and taken up by the conductor of the train. On the next day, October 30th, Rice, desiring to return to Olathe, boarded one of the passenger trains of the company, which left Kansas City about ten o’clock p. M., and when the conductor called upon him for his fare, presented the “return coupon” of the ticket, which he had purchased the day before. The conductor took it to the light, and after examining it, handed it back to Rice, saying it was not good, and informed him that he could not honor it. Rice insisted that the ticket was good, and said to the conductor that he had purchased the ticket the day before, and that he, the conductor, had carried him upon the ticket to Kansas City on that day. Another passenger also stated to the conductor at the time, that he had seen Rice purchase the ticket on the 29th. The conductor replied that he could not honor the ticket, and subsequently took hold of Rice’s coat-collar and led him out of the car. Rice had no money to pay any extra fare; and when he was off the car, or about to get off, a friend gave him seventy-five cents, which he gave to th.e conductor, who returned him five cents, punched a receipt for his fare, and permitted him to ride to Olathe.
On the part of Rice, it is contended that the ticket he presented showed plainly on its back that it was stamped at Olathe
On the part of the railway company it is claimed that the ticket had been folded up and creased' at the date; that the conductor took it to the light and examined it carefully; that the date was obliterated; that the ticket looked so old and worn that the conductor believed it had expired; that he informed Rice that the ticket was not good and that he could not ride upon it, but would have to pay fare; that when the train reached Holliday the conductor inquired of Rice what he was going to do; that Rice then refused to pay fare or get off the train; that the conductor then took hold of Rice’s coat-collar and led him to the platform of the station, or to the last step of the car; that then a friend told Rice to come back and he would give him money to pay his fare, and the conductor permitted Rice to take his seat and ride to his destination ; that when Rice was informed that he would have to pay his fare or leave the car, it was his duty to do one or the other; that he should have paid his fare and relied upon his remedy to recover it back; that if he could not do this he should have quietly left the train and not provoked or made necessary an assault; that therefore he should have recovered only seventy-one cents, that amount being the sum assessed by the jury for his pecuniary loss. The railroad company, asked instructions which tended to limit the amount of damages that Rice was entitled to recover to the exact fare paid by him, with interest thereon. The court refused to give these instructions, but directed the jury, among other things, as follows:
“I instruct you that if you find the plaintiff presented to the conductor for his passage a limited ticket, good only for three days from the date of its sale, and that the conductor,*402 from the mutilated and worn condition of the ticket, was unable to read the date on the ticket, and honestly believed that the ticket was an old one, and not good, and for this reason, and without any unnecessary force or indignity to the plaintiff, required him to pay his fare or get off, and did upon refusal and failure to pay fare, remove said plaintiff without any unnecessary force and without injury to his person, to the platform of the car, or to the platform or ground at a regular, station, and then plaintiff paid his fare and continued his; journey on the samé train and without delay; then, if you find as a fact that the ticket presented by plaintiff was a good and valid ticket, and that the conductor had no right to collect this fare from the plaintiff, you must find a verdict for the plaintiff, and the measure of his damages would be the amount of fare paid by him, with interest at seven per cent, per annum from October 30, 1885, and actual compensation for the injury and outrage, if any, suffered by plaintiff from the alleged assault.”
“ There is a special duty on the carrier to protect its passengers, not only against the violence and insults of strangers and co-passengers, but a, fortiori, against the violence and insults of its own servants, and that for a breach of that duty be ought to be compelled to make the amplest reparation. The law wisely and justly holds him to a strict and rigorous accountability. We would not relax in the slightest degree this strict accountability. We know that upon it in no small degree depends the safety and comfort of passengers.” (M. K. & T. Rly. Co. v. Weaver,16 Kas. 456 ; K. P. Rly. Co. v. Kessler, 18 id. 523.)
We fully concede that no one has a right to resort to force to compel the performance of a contract made with him by another; and a passenger about to be wrongfully expelled
Whether the conductor was grossly negligent, amounting to wantonness, or actuated by malice, were matters before .the jury for their determination upon the evidence. Under the authority of Titus v. Corkins,
The amount of the verdict in this case was only one hundred and seventeen dollars and forty-six cents; therefore the damages are not so excessive as to indicate passion or prejudice on the part of the jury.
The other matters submitted are immaterial.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.