Summary
In Tri-State Transit Co. of La. v. Worley, 197 Miss. 663, 20 So.2d 477, we said that where the proof was sufficient to sustain a verdict for $500.00 actual damages, an additional award of $1,000.
Summary of this case from Sandifer Oil Co. v. DewOpinion
No. 35750.
January 8, 1945. Suggestion of Error Overruled February 12, 1945.
1. CARRIERS.
Conflicting evidence as to whether passenger was ejected from bus for misconduct and under reasonable rules regulating reception and seating of passengers or in willful and wanton disregard of passenger's rights authorized verdict for passenger for wrongful ejectment.
2. CARRIERS.
In passenger's action for wrongful ejectment from bus, instruction submitting question of whether both actual and punitive damages should be allowed and stating that total damages were not to exceed amount sued for, without naming respective amounts mentioned in declaration, was not error.
3. APPEAL AND ERROR.
Where declaration sought recovery of $1,000 punitive and $2,000 actual damages for wrongful ejectment from a bus, and jury returned verdict for $1,500 but were not polled to determine whether they intended to award more than $1,000 as punitive damages, award of $1,000 punitive damages and $500 actual damages not being excessive, verdict would not be disturbed.
4. CARRIERS.
$500 as compensation for humiliation, embarrassment and mental suffering for wrongful ejectment from bus, together with $1,000 as punitive damages, was not excessive.
APPEAL from the circuit court of Adams county, HON. R.E. BENNETT, Judge.
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.
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, handed his ticket to the driver entitling him to passage to the station of Roxie, between Natchez and Brookhaven, and was assisted by the driver with his baggage to a seat on the bus, and told that "Your 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 get 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 further shown without dispute that at least five other persons were allowed to take passage on the same bus to the station of Roxie, 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.
All the alleged misconduct of the plaintiff above mentioned was denied by him, and none of the passengers or by-standers seem to have observed any misconduct on his part, except to the extent that he was boasting about a suit that he could or would file if he was not allowed to ride. The plaintiff also denied the contention of the defendant that he was told that one of the other busses at the station was to immediately follow the one from which he was ejected, or that the slip of paper given him was for use thereon.
This conflicting evidence presented an issue for the jury as to whether or not the reasonable rules and regulations relied on by the bus company, as to the order of accepting and seating passengers, were wrongfully applied in the instant case, taking into consideration that neither the bus driver nor the station manager claimed that the plaintiff was ejected because all the seats were needed for passengers going a greater distance than his destination, but rather on account of his own alleged misconduct.
It is true that the plaintiff was not subjected to any violence or personal abuse, but if his story is true, then the jury was warranted in finding that the bus company acted in willful and wanton disregard of his rights as a passenger when it caused the officers of the law to come and eject him from its bus in the presence of other passengers and the crowd assembled at the station — a procedure that would necessarily cause any gentleman to suffer humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish.
In this state of case, the court granted an instruction for the plaintiff which properly submitted to the jury the question of whether or not both actual and punitive damages should be allowed, and stating that, "The total damages not to exceed the amount sued for," without naming the respective amounts mentioned in the declaration. The suit was for $2000 actual, and $1000 punitive, damages. The verdict rendered was for $1500, without it being indicated therein that the punitive damages, if such were intended to be 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.