Smith v. Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad

McSherry, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The only question discussed at the bar in this case was whether the trial Court was right in giving to the jury an instruction that there was' no legally sufficient evidence to warrant them in awarding punitive damages against the defendant. A verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and a judgment was entered thereon for five hundred dollars ; but the plaintiff appealed because of the ruling just mentioned. . The suit was brought to recover damages for a personal injury.

The plaintiff was a passenger on the cars of the defendant railroad company. He purchased a ticket entitling him to ride from Charlestown to Elkton. He entered the ladies’ car and, according to his own testimony, after taking a seat placed his feet, which were muddy, against the side of the car just under the window. Whilst in that reclining posture he was approached by “ some one” that he after-wards described as the brakeman, who “grabbed” him and said “Put your feet down or I will make you do it.” “ This;” the plaintiff went on to testify, “ was very rough treatment, and I resented it very promptly. ” He further swore that he used pretty plain language to the person who-had accosted him ; and it is unquestionable that he thought the person whom he addressed was the brakeman.

Whether conductor or brakeman, the official wanted to know, so the plaintiff said, where he, the plaintiff, intended to get off; and to that inquiry, which was a perfectly proper one, the plaintiff stated that he replied, “ None of your business, i ⁵⁰ can take care of myself.” When the train reached Elk-ton, the plaintiff’s destination, the brakeman said “ Get out here, this is Elkton,” and the plaintiff replied, “I will get out when the car stops,” to which he said the brakeman rejoined, “ I will make you.” The plaintiff then proceeded to testify thus: “ He did not say this in a very mild manner, and as I approached the door, he looked at me, showing malice on his countenance, and I turned to him and I says, * Don’t put your hands on me,’ apprehensive that I might fall. ***** next instant I was headforemost off the cars.” It further appeared beyond dispute that the brakeman did not touch the plaintiff; but that he was pulled from the car platform by the conductor who was standing down on the station platform. There can be no doubt in the world that the car had stopped before the plaintiff walked out of the car door to the car platform; because there were two ladies in front of him who had alighted and there were passengers entering from the station platform, whilst the plaintiff stood inside the car and later, on the car platform. Instead of descending the steps he continued on the platform of the car, making no more delay, he says, than he “ would have done had a man been standing by him in a threatening attitude ■ ' and he remained in that position because he felt apprehensive that the brakeman might push him off. There was evidence adduced to show that the plaintiff had been drinking and that he was under the influence of liquor; and there was also evidence before the jury tending to show, if not actually showing, that the plaintiff did in fact delay the train by not alighting in a reasonable timé after the train had come to a stop at Elk-ton.

Indeed, any other inference from the entire evidence would have been pure conjecture. The plaintiff himself admitted, as just shown by a quotation from his own testimony, that he caused no more delay than he would have occasioned had a man been standing by in a threatening attitude. If he caused no more delay that in his judgment he would have produced had a man been standing by in the ⁵¹ attitude he describes, then he must have caused some delay; and he was not justified in causing any. Nearly all the witnesses examined in behalf of the plaintiff testified to the verbal altercation between the plaintiff and the brakeman on the car platform and to the further fact that the conductor reached up from the station platform and pulled the plaintiff down from the car.

The injuries sustained from that fall are those for which the pending suit was brought. According to the plaintiff’s witnesses there had been no dispute or contention between the plaintiff and the conductor, and the only remark imputed to the latter is, “ Yes, you will get down,” as the conductor reached up, and, in the language of one of the witnesses, “jerked” the plaintiff down. There was much flat contradiction in the evidence, but it was the province of the jury to decide between the conflicting statements of the several witnesses ; and we have nothing to do with that feature of the proof at all. Conceding the truth of the plaintiff’s case as made out by his witnesses, was there sufficient evidence before the jury to justify them in awarding punitive