Mississippi Supreme Court, 1945

Tri-State Transit Co. of Louisiana v. Worley

Mississippi Supreme Court · Decided January 8, 1945 · McGehee, Smith

20 So. 2d 477; 197 Miss. 663; 1945 Miss. LEXIS 304 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Brandon, Brandon Hornsby, of Natchez, for appellant. The evidence for the plaintiff should have been excluded and defendants' motion for peremptory instruction should have been granted. As examination of the evidence offered for the plaintiff will disclose, the plaintiff was informed of the reasonable rule and regulation of this carrier publicly announced as to the manner in which its bus on this occasion would be loaded and the order in which passengers would be admitted. It affirmatively appears that the plaintiff entered the bus in contravention of the rule so publicly announced, and when he was courteously required to get off the bus he refused to do so. His refusal to get off the bus as requested resulted in no more than the orderly insistence of the bus driver and station manager and finally in the courteous demand on the part of the police officer who was summoned. No indignity was offered to the plaintiff and the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff discloses no damage of any kind done to him. Even if it be conceded for the sake of argument that the removal of the plaintiff from this defendant's bus was unreasonably and unjustifiably required, yet so far as this evidence discloses the most that could have been awarded to the plaintiff on the basis of the evidence offered by and on behalf of the plaintiff was nominal damage. Even nominal damages should not have been awarded in this case. Certainly inasmuch as the plaintiff suffered no actual damages, punitive damages could not have been allowed. A public carrier has the right to eject passengers for reasonable cause, such as the violation of the carrier's reasonable rules and regulations and when the passengers interfere with the proper conduct of the business of the carrier. 10 C.J. 727, 731, particularly Sec. 1167, p. 730; 13 C.J.S. 1608, 1628-1629, Sec. 819; 10 Am. Jur. 313, Sec. 1539. The court erred in giving to the plaintiff the instruction which reads as follows: "The Court instructs the Jury for the Plaintiff that punitive damages are damages which are in the nature of a punishment for wrong doing and for the purpose of an example so that others may be deterred from the commission of similar wrong doing and so that the public may be properly protected, and if you believe from a preponderance of the evidence in this case that the Defendant, Tri-State Transit Company of the Louisiana, Incorporated, by and through its agents, acting within the line of their duties and the scope of their employment, in the presence and hearing of passengers and other members of the public, ejected or caused to be ejected from its bus the Plaintiff, C.S. Worley, after he had been accepted upon the bus as a passenger and after the ticket for which he had paid the Defendant had been surrenderd to and accepted by the bus driver, and that the Plaintiff was ejected from the bus without reasonable grounds or excuse and in a manner wantonly disregarding his rights as a passenger, then you, as Jurors, may award against the Defendant, Tri-State Transit Company of Louisiana, Incorporated, punitive damages in such amount as you may deem proper, and in addition to any actual damages the Plaintiff may have sustained, the total damages not to exceed the amount sued for." Alabama V.R. Co. v. Cox, 106 Miss. 33 , 63 So. 334; Yazoo M.V.R. Co. v. Hardie, 100 Miss. 132 , 55 So. 967, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 742, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 323; New Orleans, J. G.N.R. Co. v. Statham, 42 Miss. 607 , 97 Am. Dec. 478; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Dodds, 97 Miss. 865 , 53 So. 409; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Jennings, 110 Miss. 673 , 70 So. 830; McCain v. Cochran, 153 Miss. 237 , 120 So. 823 . The plaintiff requested and was given only three instructions, to-wit, one on the form of verdict, one to the effect that nine jurors upon agreement might return the verdict of the jury, and the last and only instruction in any way bearing on the case and as to which we particularly complain. This cause was submitted to the jury without proper instructions having been requested and obtained by plaintiff as to the theory, basis, grounds and elements for determining liability, vel non, or for allowance of damages. This was error. Greenwade v. Mills, 31 Miss. 464 ; Young, Executor, v. Power, 41 Miss. 197 ; Baldwin v. McKay, 41 Miss. 358 ; Southern Ry. Co. v. Ganong, 99 Miss. 540 , 55 So. 355; Yazoo M.V.R. Co. v. Cornelius, 131 Miss. 37 , 95 So. 90; McDonough Motor Express, Inc., v. Spiers, 180 Miss. 78 , 176 So. 723 , 177 So. 655. The verdict of the jury is excessive, contrary to the law and the evidence, and evidences a disregard of the facts and law and prejudice on the part of the jury. Need we do more than mention the fact that the jury in this case awarded a verdict of $1,500 when no person has testified to any damage done to the plaintiff or any indignity offered him, and when at best it can be said for the plaintiff's case that on a doubtful issue he may have been unreasonably required to get off the bus and delayed on a pleasure trip of no great consequence to him. Joseph E. Brown, of Natchez, for appellee. The entire record, with all of the pleadings, the testimony and the instructions, clearly demonstrates that this case was fairly tried in the court below; that any errors committed were harmless ones; that any insufficiencies in the instructions were amply corrected by other instructions and that substantial justice was found. Argued orally by Gerard Brandon and Oliver Hornsby, for appellant, and by Joseph E. Brown, for appellee.

Opinion of the Court

McGehee, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellee, C. S. Worley, recovered judgment against the appellant, Tri-State Transit Company of Louisiana, for damages because of his alleged wrongful ejection as a passenger from one of its busses.

The evidence on behalf of the plaintiff discloses that when the bus driver was ready to leave the city of Natchez he announced that he would first receive as passengers, and seat on the bus, those going as far as Hattiesburg and beyond; and next those going as far as Brookhaven and beyond; that thereupon, after admitting such passengers as then appeared at the door of the bus in response to this announcement, he looked at the plaintiff, gave him a nod, and said, “O. K.”; that plaintiff then put part of his baggage up in the bus at the top of the door steps thereof, carried the remainder up the steps, *668 handed his ticket to the driver entitling him to passage to the station of Eoxie, between Natchez and Brookhaven, and was assisted by the driver with his baggage to a seat on the bus, and told that “Tour age got you by this time,’’ (evidently meaning thereby that plaintiff was being permitted to then get on without being required to wait longer to see if other passengers should appear for passage to more distant points than his destination); that shortly thereafter the bus driver told him that he would have to g*et off; that he declined to do so when the station manager was summoned, and finally two uniformed police officers, who asked the plaintiff whether he was coming off or going to make them drag or take him off; that he then left the bus, with one of the officers taking part of his baggage for him, and it was furthér shown without dispute that at least five other persons were allowed to take passage on the same bus to the station of Eoxie, one of whom was taken on somewhere in the city after the bus left the Natchez station.

The defense of the bus company was that in the reception and seating of its passengers on'the occasion complained of, it was acting under reasonable rules and regulations, duly authorized and approved by the supervising public agencies having jurisdiction over common carriers; that the plaintiff thereupon became indignant because a negro passenger going as far as Brookhaven was" about to be taken on the bus ahead of him; that he then forced his way on before it came his turn to get on, and was allowed to be seated on account of his age, but that he kept on complaining, and creating such a disturbance that he annoyed the other passengers, and rendered it unsafe for the driver to drive the bus with due composure; that except for such misbehavior he would have been permitted to remain thereon; that he was given a transfer ticket for the next bus to follow soon on the same schedule, and was later told by the station manager that he could catch the second bus on that schedule, or could get back on the same bus if he would behave.

*669 All tbe alleged misconduct of tbe plaintiff above mentioned was denied by bim, and none of tbe passengers or by-standers seem to bave observed any misconduct on bis part, except to tbe extent tbat be was boasting’ about a suit tbat he could or would file if be was not allowed to ride. Tbe plaintiff also denied tbe contention of tbe defendant that be was told tbat one of tbe other busses at tbe station was to immediately follow tbe one from which be was ejected, or tbat tbe slip of paper given bim was for use thereon.

This conflicting evidence presented an issue for tbe jury as to whether or not tbe reasonable rules and regulations relied on by tbe bus company, as to the order of accepting’ and seating* passengers, were wrongfully applied in tbe instant case, taking into consideration tbat neither tbe bus driver nor tbe station manager claimed tbat tbe plaintiff was ejected because all tbe seats were needed for passengers going a greater distance than bis destination, but rather on account of bis own alleged misconduct.

It is true tbat tbe plaintiff was not subjected to any violence or personal abuse, but if bis story is true, then tbe jury was warranted in finding tbat tbe bus company acted in willful and wanton disregard of bis rights as a passenger when it caused tbe officers of tbe law to come and eject bim from its bus in tbe presence of other passengers and tbe crowd assembled at tbe station — a procedure tbat would necessarily cause any gentleman to suffer humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish.

In this state of case, tbe court granted an instruction for tbe plaintiff which properly submitted to tbe jury tbe question of whether or not both actual and punitive damages should be allowed, and stating- tbat,£ £ Tbe total damages not to exceed tbe amount sued for, ’ ’ without naming tbe respective amounts mentioned in tbe declaration. Tbe suit was for $2000- actual, and $1000 punitive, damages. The verdict rendered was for $1500, without it being indicated therein tbat tbe punitive damages, if *670 such, were intended to he allowed, were within the amount sued for.

We do not think that the giving of this instruction was error, nor that the jury was misled thereby. No request was made to have the jury polled to ascertain whether or not they intended to award more than $1000 as punitive damages; and since a verdict of $500 could not be deemed excessive as compensation for humiliation, embarrassment and mental suffering, nor the sum of $1000 as punitive damages, we would not be justified in reversing the case for another trial on account of the form of this instruction; nor do we find reversible error in connection with any of the other grounds assigned.

The judgment will therefore be affirmed.

Affirmed.

L. A. Smith, Sr., J., not participating.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.