Tri-State Transit Co. of Louisiana v. Worley

20 So. 2d 477, 197 Miss. 663, 1945 Miss. LEXIS 304

• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Decided: January 8, 1945
• Docket: No. 35750.
• Status: Published

Opinion

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, 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.

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 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.