Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad v. Larkin

Miller, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This action was brought by the appellee who was a passenger on the appellant’s cars, to recover damages for having been expelled therefrom by the conductor, and other employes of the company. There is a direct conflict in the testimony as to the cause of the expulsion, the circumstances attending and the degree of violence used in accomplishing it. It was for the jury to decide that question and they have done so.

Our duty is confined to a review of the rulings of the Court below upon the law of the case to which exception ivas taken by the defendant. All the prayers offered on both sides, (four on the part of the plaintiff and' three on the part of the defendant,) were granted. Those on the part of the defendant are not before us, inasmuch as the verdict and judgment were in favor of the plaintiff, and he has taken no exception to the granting of these instructions. The sole inquiry therefore is, was there error in granting the plaintiff’s prayers or either of them?

In reviewing these prayers one of the questions presented is, were the jury rightly instructed upon the subject of exemplary damages? That the jury may be allowed to give exemplary or punitive damages against a railroad company in an action like this, if the circumstances of the case warrant it, is no longer an open question in this State. It was so held in the case of the President of the Balt. & Yorktown Turnpike Road vs. Boone, decided by this Court-at its April Term, 1816. There the action was to recover damages for an expulsion from the defendant’s horse cars, and by the plaintiff’s second prayer, which the Court granted in that case, the jury were instructed that if they found for the plaintiff under his first instruction, “they should award him such sum as damages, as will compensate him for the injury to his person, feelings and character, arising from the unlawful act of the defendant, and, if they believe the said unlawful act was deliberately ¹⁶² and forcibly done, then they may give such exemplary damages as. they may consider a proper punishment for the conduct of the defendant acting through its agent the conductor.” In this instruction there is a plain statement of what constitutes damages by way of compensation, and in reference to that part of the instruction this Court said it “ presents a sound and unquestionable proposition.” As to the latter branch of it relating to exemplary damages, we said the question “is not entirely free from difficulty” hut affirmed it upon the authority of the Supreme Court in Quigley’s Case, 21 How., 214 , where it is said “whenever the injury complained of has been inflicted maliciously or wantonly, and with circumstances of contumely or indignity, the jury are not limited to the ascertainment of a simple compensation for the wrong committed against the aggrieved person.” This doctrine has also very recently been approved by the Supreme Court in a collision case: Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. vs. Arms, 1 Otto, 493 ; where after reference to the case of Day vs. Woodworth, 13 How., 371 , where the rule of exemplary damages was discussed and recognized, and after quoting the language of Mr. Justice Campbell, in Quigley’s Case, 21 How., 213, 214 , the Court say: “Although this rule was announced in an action for libel, it is equally applicable to suits for personal injuries received through the negligence of others.

Redress commensurate to such injuries should he afforded. In ascertaining its extent, the jury may consider all the facts which relate to the wrongful. act of the defendant and its consequences to the plaintiff: hut they are not at liberty to go further unless it was done wilfully, or was the result of that reckless indifference to the rights of.others, which is equivalent to an intentional violation of them. In that case the jury are authorized, for the sake of public example, to give such additional damages as the circumstances require. The tort is aggravated by the evil motive and on this rests the rule of exemplary damages.” ¹⁶³ This seems to us to place the law on this subject upon safe and satisfactory grounds, and in view of these, authorities there was clearly no error in granting the plaintiff’s third prayer, to the effect that, “if the jury find for the plaintiff, then they should award him such damages as will, under all the circumstances of the case, compensate him for the injury to his person and feelings, suffered by reason of the unlawful acts of the defendant; and if they find that plaintiff was treated with unnecessary and reckless violence and indignity, then they may award such further damages as they may think proper to puhish such conduct and deter the defendant from like conduct in the future.” By the plaintiff’s fourth prayer the jury were instructed that “even if they shall believe from the evidence that the plaintiff acted in a disorderly manner, and persisted in such disorderly conduct to the annoyance of the passengers, or refused to show his ticket on the demand of the conductor, and that it then became necessary under the rules and regulations of the company for the conductor to eject him from the cars, and that he was so ejected, still if they further find from the evidence that unnecessary force was used in such expulsion, then their verdict must be for the plaintiff; and in estimating the damages they may allow the plaintiff such sum of money as in their judgment will compensate him for the wounds and injuries inflicted upon him by the use of such unnecessary force, (if they shall find such wounds and injuries,) as well as for the mortification and indignity placed upon him should they find any such; and if they shall further find that there was such unnecessary forcible expulsion, and that defendant’s employés acted in a wanton, high-handed and outrageous manner, then they may allow the plaintiff such further sum of money as in their judgment may be a proper punishment of the defendant.” We find no error in this instruction.

It concedes the plaintiff may have been at fault in the first instance, and subjected himself to law ¹⁶⁴ ful expulsion from the cars, and that the agents of the company had therefore the right to expel him. But in the exercise of this right it was their plain duty to use no more forcé or violence than was absolutely necessary to accomplish the