Wilson v. New Orleans & Northeastern R. R.

Citations

• 63 Miss. 352

Syllabus

<p>1. Baxlboad Company. ■Action against for failure to stop train. Special contract.</p> <p>W. bought from a railroad company a ticket from E. to B. and return, at a reduced rate. There was a condition in the ticket that it was good only on the trains advertised to stop at stations named therein. A train not advertised to stop at B. was signaled at that point by W., but failed to stop for him. Held, that W.’s rights on this ticke t'were limited by the conditions thereof, and he could not take advantage of the reduction in the rale and reject the conditions on which the reduction was made. Hence, it was no breach of the special contract when the train refused to stop at B. on the signal of W.</p> <p>2. Same. Obligations to the public. Refusal to stop train when signaled. Damages.</p> <p>But in such case W. has certain rights outside of his special contract, and if he signaled the train (the station being one where such trains should have stopped when signaled), and such signal was seen, or might have been seen, by the employees of the company in charge of the train, and was disregarded by them, the company is liable on the ground of a violation of a general duty which it owes to the public, and if such employees willfully, recklessly, or capriciously refused to stop the train, the company thereby became subject to exemplary damages. Chicago R. R. Co. v. Scurr, 59 Miss. 456, cited.</p> <p>3. Same. Action against. Failure to stop train when signaled. Damages. JEvidence. Instructions.</p> <p>And when in such case the evidence is conflicting as to whether the signals made for the train to stop were seen, or might, by reasonable care, have been seen, by the employees of the company, it is error for the court to instruct the jury that there is no proof of willful wrong, and that the plaintiff is not entitled, in any view of the case, to recover more than the actual pecuniary . loss sustained by him.</p>