Miss. & Tenn. R. R. v. Gill
Miss. & Tenn. R. R. v. Gill
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is not a case for punitive damages even on the evidence produced by the plaintiff and the court erred in not so ruling. Brusqueness on the part of a railroad conductor is not an insult for which his employers are to be punished where it amounts to no
As a matter of practice the court erred in not permitting the witness, Russell, to be recalled and examined as to a phase of the case developed by the examination of the plaintiff’s attorneys, after Russell had been examined and dismissed from the witness-stand. As we understand from the record, after Russell had been examined the counsel for the plaintiff inquired of the witness of defendant as to the habit of dealing with the telegraphic messages-sent by conductors from each station announcing arrival of trains. This witness was not conversant with the matter, and it was proposed by counsel for defendant to examine Russell, who was informed on the point, but the court refused to permit this, because Russell had once been on the stand, and all his knowledge applicable to the case should then have been elicited. The admirable rule, which was applied by the court, was not applicable, because the occasion for examining the witness as proposed did not arise until after his examination.
Reversed and remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Miss. and Tenn. R. R. Co. v. H. I. Gill
- Cited By
- 9 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Railroads. Conduetw. Insult to passengers. Damages. Although there is a breach of duty by the conductor of a railroad train toward a passenger, yet, in the absence of willful wrong, oppression, or reckless disregard of his rights, mere brusqueness in the words or manner of the conductor toward the passenger is not an insult which justifies the infliction of punitive damages against the company. 2. Same. Failure to stop train. Punitive damages. Case in judgment. Upon the arrival of the train at their station, plaintiff and wife were prevented from alighting before the train moved off, owing to the crowding into the car of a large number of excursionists. In his efforts to signal the engineer to stop the plaintiff broke the bell-cord. The train had moved two or three hundred feet, when plaintiff demanded that the conductor stop the train. This the conductor refused to do, because “the train carried the U. S. mail.” At the same time he chided plaintiff for having broken the bell-cord, but he offered to take plaintiff and wife to the next station, six miles, whence they could return on an excursion train in an hour. This was done, plaintiff paying return fare. Held, not a case for punitive damages. 3. Practice. Evidence. Pee ailing witness. Where a witness has been examined and dismissed, and a subsequent witness upon the same side is questioned on cross-examination as to new matters, about which, however, he is not informed, but about which the first witness is conversant, it is right to allow the first witness to be recalled and examined in reference to such matters.