Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1914

Williams v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R.

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided July 17, 1914 · Gage

83 S.E. 604; 99 S.C. 397; 1914 S.C. LEXIS 116 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Mr. Lucian W. McLemore , for appellant, submits: I. It is the right and duty of the conductor to demand production of ticket or fare and to eject a passenger upon failure to comply with such reasonable and proper demand, in the absence of a proper explanation, which it is the legal duty of the conductor to accept and act upon. 2. There was no duty on the part of the conductor in this case to accept the explanation of plaintiff, because such duty devolves upon a conductor only when the passenger is wholly without fault and has done all that could reasonably be required of him , And cites: As to first proposition: Elliott R.R. (2d. ed.), sec. 1594; 6 Cyc. 547, 551; Hutch. Car. (3d ed.), sec. 1024, 1036. As to second proposition: 88 S.C. 421 ; 64 S.C. 514 ; 42 S.E. 598 ; 69 S.C. 327 ; 48 S.E. 252 ; 87 S.C. 184 ; 88 S.C. 7 ; 70 S.E. 311 ; 64 Mich. 631 ; 8 Am. St. Rep. 859; 79 Ga. 358 ; 65 Ark. 177 ; 67 Am. St. Rep. 913; 103 Tenn. 124 ; 76 Am. St. Rep. 639; 143 U.S. 60 , 73 ; 85 Tenn. 627 ; 4 Am. St. Rep. 776; 161 Ind. 153 ; 100 Am. St. Rep. 261; 70 Fed. 585; 30 L.R.A. 730; 114 Ga. 140 ; 39 S.E. 894 ; 55 L.R.A. 536; 35 S.W. 501 ; 6 Cyc. 556, 557, 588. As to third proposition: 6 Cyc. 61; Hutch. Carriers (3d ed.), secs. 1131, 1260, 1264, 1265. Sleeping car cases: 89 S.C. 287 ; 71 S.E. 841 ; 87 S.C. 361 ; notes to 21 L.R.A. 289, and 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 407; Ann. Cases 1913a, 894; 126 Ga. 609 ; 55 S.E. 933 ; 32 S.E. 923; 27 Misc. 508 ; 58 N.Y. Supp. 300 ; 202 N.Y. 363 ; 95 N.E. 808 ; Ann. Cas. 1912d 1150, 1156; 124 N.Y. 23 ; 143 Mass. 243 ; 79 Conn. 565 ; 9 Am. Eng. Ann. Cas. 199; 7 Hill (N.Y.) 47; 42 Am. Dec. 36; 149 Ky., 776 ; 149 S.W. 1002 ; 41 L.R.A. (N.S.) note; 3 L.R. 6 C.P. 44. Prior sale of ticket did not create through contract: 21 S.C. 35 . Exception I: Elliott R.R. (2d ed.), secs. 217, 218 219. Exception 3: 88 S.C. 421 ; 91 S.C. 216 . Exception 5: 71 S.C. 446 ; 6 Cyc. 561; 73 S.C. 557 ; 75 S.C. 355 ; 86 S.C. 514 . Charge on facts: 78 S.C. 103 ; 69 S.C. 434 , 439 and 443. Messrs. L.D. Jennings and R.D. Epps , for respondent: Exception I: Res gestae , 49 S.C. 444 ; 27 S.C. 67 ; 19 S.C. 373 ; 79 S.C. 447 ; 73 S.C. 253 . Admissions by agent: 82 S.C. 467 . Exception 2: 75 S.C. 125 . Exception 3: .

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Gage.

Action for tort, in the wrongful ejectment of a negro woman passenger, at Royster, about one mile east of Columbia, and towards Sumter.

The verdict was $200.00 punitive damages. The defendant appeals and assigns six errors. Of these, one is in the admission of testimony, one in refusing to direct verdict, and four in charging the jury.

4-6 The undisputed facts are these: The woman had bought in Sumter a return ticket to Greenville, via Columbia and Laurens.

She was on her return to Sumter, and came without incident to Columbia.

At that point there was a change of conductors; and the change took place at Gervais street, towards Greenville from the Union Station. The ticket which she held had been “punched” from Greenville to Columbia.

When the train left Union Station at Columbia, going towards Sumter, and within five minutes, the new conductor proceeded to lift the plaintiff’s ticket.

The plaintiff told the conductor, when he reached' her, that she had possessed a ticket, but could not then find it. When the train had gone one and one-half miles further, the ticket was found by the porter and another negro, under a seat.

This statement is taken from the defendant’s witnesses; it makes a case against the defendant, and the Circuit Court was right to refuse to direct a verdict for the defendant.

*410 It was properly left to the jury to find whether it was the exercise of the highest degree of care to eject a passenger, who claimed to have a ticket, within a mile of the place of departure. The defendant company was guilty of a plain delict, and one which warranted a verdict for punitive damages.

7 The testimony of the porter only established the testimony above set out, the same practically was testified to by the conductor, and about which there is no dispute. There was, therefore, no error to admit it.

This disposes of the first and second exceptions. They cover the real issue in the case, and that was, did the defendant company act with unreasonable haste in ejecting the passenger.

1-3 The other exceptions are to the charge. Let it be reported. It was short, pointed and free from error; and the exceptions to it are without merit.

The judgment below is affirmed.

Footnote. — As to duty of conductor to heed explanation by passenger of failure to present ticket, see Teddars v. So. Ry. Co., 97 S. C. 153, 81 S. E. 474, and McKeown v. So. Ry. Co., 98 S. C. 338, 82 S. E. 437.

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