that one has drunk too much, or is somewhat intoxicated, does not justify his ejection, unless his conduct is fraught with annoyance, discomfort, or danger to the other passengers or to the carrier and his servants.82 A wise discretion, in such cases, on the part of the carrier's servants, is demanded. Passengers have been rightfully expelled for the loud use of profane and obscene language. One affected with a highly contagious disease could also be ejected, and a study of the cases would reveal other acts for which a passenger might be rightfully ejected.

84

There are statutes in some of the states giving the carrier the right to eject a passenger for nonpayment of fare, violation of the carrier's regulations, or misconduct.86 These statutes, however, are usually merely declaratory of the common law and ordinarily give the carrier no right to eject when he would not have had the right even in the absence of the statute. Sometimes the right to arrest is conferred on the conductor.

SAME SAME-CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE

EJECTION

172. At common law, the ejection may be at any place at which the ejection is not fraught with danger to the passenger.

In some states, by statute, however, the ejection must be either at a station or near a dwelling house.

In ejecting a passenger no more force is to be used than is neces

sary to accomplish that purpose, and the ejection must be carried out in a manner which will not endanger the passenger's safety.

Place of Ejection

By the common law, when a cause exists for which a carrier may eject a passenger, the carrier is not bound to wait until his vehicle.

513; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Weber, 33 Kan. 543, 6 Pac. 877, 52 Am. Rep. 543; Hudson v. Lyon & B. R. Co., 178 Mass. 64, 59 N. E. 647; Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Saulsberry, 112 Ky. 915, 66 S. W. 1051, 56 L. R. A. 580. 82 Putnam v. Broadway & S. A. R. Co., 55 N. Y. 108, 14 Am. Rep. 190; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Logan, 88 Ky. 232, 10 S. W. 655, 3 L. R. A. 80, 21 Am. St. Rep. 332; Edgerly v. Union St. R. Co., 67 N. H. 312, 36 Atl. 558.

83 Peavy v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co., 81 Ga. 485, 8 S. E. 70, 12 Am. St. Rep. 334; Robinson v. Rockland, T. & C. St. Ry. Co., 87 Me. 387, 32 Atl. 994, 29 L. R. A. 530.

84 Paddock v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (C. C.) 37 Fed. 841, 4 L. R. A. 231.

85 See 1 Fetter on Passenger Carriers, § 312, for citations to numerous statutes of this kind.

86 See 1 Fetter on Passenger Carriers, § 331; Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. ▼. Moore, 148 Ala. 63, 41 South. 984.

has reached a regular stopping place. For instance, a railway train may be stopped anywhere between stations, and an offending passenger put off." The carrier in such cases is under no obligation to consult the convenience of the passenger to be ejected.88

There is, however, this well-defined limitation to the carrier's selecting the place of ejection: The place must not be one at which the ejection would be fraught with personal danger to the passenger. There can be no wanton disregard for the passenger's rights in this respect, whatever may have been the cause of his ejection."0 Thus it seems clear that a passenger could not be ejected in the middle of a dangerous trestle on a dark night, nor in a lonely and deserted spot in the midst of a severe snowstorm. In considering what is a dangerous place, regard must be had, not only to the general surrounding circumstances, but also to the condition of the passenger, whether male or female, old or young, healthy or sick, sober or intoxicated.1

87 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Whittemore, 43 Ill. 420, 92 Am. Dec. 138; O'Brien v. Boston & W. R. Co., 15 Gray (Mass.) 20, 77 Am. Dec. 347; BROWN v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. R. CO., 51 Iowa, 235, 1 N. W. 487, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 318; Wyman v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 34 Minn. 210, 25 N. W. 349; Lillis v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. Ry. Co., 64 Mo. 464, 27 Am. Rep. 255; Great Western Ry. Co. of Canada v. Miller, 19 Mich. 305; McClure v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co., 34 Md. 532, 6 Am. Rep. 345; Scott v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 144 Ind. 125, 43 N. E. 133, 32 L. R. A. 154; Everett v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 69 Iowa, 15, 28 N. W. 410, 58 Am. Rep. 207; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Johnson, 92 Ala. 204, 9 South. 269, 25 Am. St. Rep. 35; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Gants, 38 Kan. 608, 17 Pac. 54, 5 Am. St. Rep. 780.

88 Magee v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. (C. C.) 46 Fed. 734; Moore v. Columbia & G. R. Co., 38 S. C. 1, 16 S. E. 781; Rudy v. Rio Grande W. Ry. Co., 8 Utah, 165, 30 Pac. 366; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Gants, 38 Kan. 608, 17 Pac. 54, 5 Am. St. Rep. 780.

89 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Latimer, 128 Ill. 163, 21 N. E. 7; BROWN v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. R. CO., 51 Iowa, 235, 1 N. W. 487, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 318; Louisville, C. & L. R. Co. v. Sullivan, 81 Ky. 624, 50 Am. Rep. 186; Toledo, W. & W. Ry. Co. v. Wright, 68 Ind. 586, 34 Am. Rep. 277; Hall v. South Carolina Ry. Co., 28 S. C. 261, 5 S. E. 623; Young v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 51 La. Ann. 295, 25 South. 69; Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Rosenzweig, 113 Pa. 519, 6 Atl. 545; Hudson v. Lynn & B. R. Co., 178 Mass. 64, 59 N. E. 647.

90 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Kirkbride, 79 Tex. 457, 15 S. W. 495; Johnson v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 104 Ala. 241, 16 South. 75, 53 Am. St. Rep. 39; Haug v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 8 N. D. 23, 77 N. W. 97, 42 L. R. A. 664, 73 Am. St. Rep. 727; McKinley v. Louisville & N. Ry. Co., 137 Ky. 845, 127 S. W. 483, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 611.

91 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Ellis' Adm'r, 97 Ky. 330, 30 S. W. 979; Gill v. Rochester & P. R. Co., 37 Hun (N. Y.) 107; Jackson v. Alabama & V. Ry. Co., 76 Miss. 703, 25 South. 353; Eidson v. Southern R. Co. (Miss.) 23 South. 369; Roseman v. Carolina Cent. R. Co., 112 N. C. 709, 16 S. E. 776, 19 L. R.

Statutes have been passed restricting the carrier's rights as to the place of ejection, and requiring that the ejection must be at some station of the carrier or in the neighborhood of some dwelling house. The carrier must, of course, comply, in a state having such a law, with the terms of the particular statute, else the ejection, however safe and proper, will be unlawful.93

Manner of Ejection

The manner of ejection adopted by the carrier's servants must never be such as to imperil the passenger's safety. What has just been said as to the place of ejection is equally applicable to the manner of ejection. Therefore, even though the ejection is proper, if it is done in a dangerous manner, the carrier will be liable to the ejected passenger." A flagrant trespasser, even, cannot be ejected in a dangerous mode." Thus, to take a stock example, the car

A. 327, 34 Am. St. Rep. 524; BROWN v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. R. CO., 51 Iowa, 235, 1 N. W. 487, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 318; Bragg's Adm'r v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 110 Va. 867, 67 S. E. 593.

92 Boehm v. Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry. Co., 91 Wis. 592, 65 N. W. 506; Durfee v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 9 Utah, 213, 33 Pac. 944; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Radford, 36 Okl. 657, 129 Pac. 834; Wright v. Central R. Co., 78 Cal. 360, 20 Pac. 740; Terre Haute v. Vanatta, 21 Ill. 187, 188, 74 Am. Dec. 96; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Latimer, 128 Ill. 163, 21 N. E. 7 (but see Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Whittemore, 43 Ill. 420, 92 Am. Dec. 138; Toledo, W. & W. R. Co. v. Wright, 68 Ind. 586, 34 Am. Rep. 277); Texas & P. R. Co. v. Casey, 52 Tex. 112; Baldwin v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 64 N. H. 596, 15 Atl. 411; South Florida R. Co. v. Rhodes, 25 Fla. 40, 5 South. 633, 3 L. R. A. 733, 23 Am. St. Rep. 506; Hobbs v. Texas & P. R. Co., 49 Ark. 357, 5 S. W. 586. A commutation railway ticket, conditioned to be "good for 1,000 miles," and "within six months," is not good after six months, although the holder has not traveled 1,000 miles on it; and where, after the expiration of that period, he enters the baggage car of the company, and refuses to pay his fare except by presenting such ticket, he is a trespasser, and may be ejected at any point, and is not entitled to the benefit of a statute which prohibits the ejection of passengers except near a dwelling house or at a station. Lillis v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co., 64 Mo. 464, 27 Am. Rep. 255.

98 Nichols v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 7 Utah, 510, 27 Pac. 693; Phettiplace v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 84 Wis. 412, 54 N. W. 1092, 20 L. R. A. 483.

94 Haman v. Omaha Horse Ry. Co., 35 Neb. 74, 52 N. W. 830; Planz v. Boston & A. R. Co., 157 Mass. 377, 32 N. E. 356, 17 L. R. A. 835; CHICAGO, ST. L. & P. R. CO. v. BILLS, 104 Ind. 13, 3 N. E. 611, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 320; Hayter v. Brunswick Traction Co., 66 N. J. Law, 575, 49 Atl. 714; Denver Tramway Co. v. Reed, 4 Colo. App. 500, 36 Pac. 557; Mills v. Seattle R. & S. R. Co., 50 Wash. 20, 96 Pac. 520, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 704; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Tuggle's Adm'r, 151 Ky. 409, 152 S. W. 270; Quigley v. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 142 S. W. 633. See, also, Drogmund v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 122 Mo. App. 154, 98 S. W. 1091.

95 Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Matthews, 13 Ind. App. 355, 41 N. E. 842; Arnold v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 115 Pa. 135, 8 Atl. 213, 2 Am. St. Rep. 542; Rounds v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 64 N. Y. 129, 21 Am. Rep. 597; Drogmund v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 122 Mo. App. 154, 98 S. W. 1091.

rier is liable for injuries received by one who was ejected from a rapidly moving train."

97

1999

When there is a right to eject a passenger, no more force is to be used than is necessary to accomplish that purpose, and for any excessive force or willful injury the carrier is liable. If the passenger resists, sufficient force to overcome his resistance may be used.98 And this is true, even as to a female passenger, for it is "not a question of gallantry or sex, but simply of legal right." When, therefore, both the ejection itself and the place and manner thereof are proper, the resistance is unlawful, and for any force used in overcoming this resistance by the carrier's servants, that is not disproportionate to the resistance, there can be no recovery from the carrier. For the added injuries, in such cases, the passenger has only his own wrong and folly to blame. Even when the passenger resists a proper ejection, however, the carrier would be. liable if undue force is employed and if the passenger be used with

* Oppenheimer v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 63 Hun, 633, 18 N. Y. Supp. 411; Sanford v. Eighth Ave. R. Co., 23 N. Y. 343, 80 Am. Dec. 286; State v. Kinney, 34 Minn. 311, 25 N. W. 705; Brown v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 66 Mo. 588; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Kirkbride, 79 Tex. 457, 15 S. W. 495; Fell v. Northern Pac. R. Co. (C. C.) 44 Fed. 248; Law v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 32 Iowa, 534; Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Matthews, 13 Ind. App. 355, 41 N. E. 842; Williams v. Louisiana R. & Nav. Co., 121 La. 438, 46 South. 528.

97 New Jersey Steamboat Co. v. Brockett, 121 U. S. 637, 7 Sup. Ct. 1039, 30 L. Ed. 1049; Holmes v. Wakefield, 12 Allen (Mass.) 580, 90 Am. Dec. 171; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Vandier, 42 Pa. 365, 82 Am. Dec. 520; Bass v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 36 Wis. 450, 17 Am. Rep. 495; Mykleby v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 39 Minn. 54, 38 N. W. 763; Evansville & I. R. Co. v. Gilmore, 1 Ind. App. 468, 27 N. E. 992; Knowles v. Norfolk & S. R. Co., 102 N. C. 59, 9 S. E. 7; Jardine v. Cornell, 50 N. J. Law, 485, 14 Atl. 590; Brown v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 66 Mo. 588; Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. Larkin, 47 Md. 155; Texas Pac. Ry. Co. v. James, 82 Tex. 306, 18 S. W. 589, 15 L. R. A. 347; Gill v. Rochester & P. R. Co., 37 Hun (N. Y.) 107; Klenk v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 27 Utah, 428, 76 Pac. 214; CHICAGO, ST. L. & P. R. CO. v. BILLS, 104 Ind. 13, 3 N. E. 611, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 320.

98 Townsend v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 56 N. Y. 295, 15 Am. Rep. 419; Murphy v. Union Ry. Co., 118 Mass. 228; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Gants, 38 Kan. 608, 17 Pac. 54, 5 Am. St. Rep. 780; Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Brame, 109 Va. 422, 63 S. E. 1018; Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Robinett, 151 Ky. 778, 152 S. W. 976, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 433.

99 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Herring, 57 Ill. 59.

1 Lillis v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. Ry. Co., 64 Mo. 464, 27 Am. Rep. 255; McCullen v. New York & N. S. Ry. Co., 68 App. Div. 269, 74 N. Y. Supp. 209; Coleman v. New York & N. H. R. Co., 106 Mass. 160; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Gants, 38 Kan. 608, 17 Pac. 54, 5 Am. St. Rep. 780; Moore v. Columbia & G. R. Co., 38 S. C. 1, 16 S. E. 781; CHICAGO, ST. L. & P. R. CO. v. BILLS, 104 Ind. 13, 3 N. E. 611, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 320.

Even

roughness altogether disproportionate to his resistance.2 resistance to a lawful ejection is not warrant for wanton injury or brutality.

If the ejection itself (regardless of the mode and place) is improper, by the better opinion, the passenger can resist and for injuries received by him as a result of his resistance he can recover from the carrier. According to some courts, however, the passenger must tamely submit to the wrongful ejection and sue for damages, and he cannot increase the damages by his obstinate (?) resistance. It may well be that imperative circumstances may require that he continue his journey without interruption. Or, if ejected, he may suffer special damages, which he may not be able to collect. It hardly seems fair, then, to expect such vicarious submission by one who is in the right in favor of the one who is doing him a wrong. As was said in a leading case: "The law does not, under such circumstances, place the passenger within the power of the conductor, and, when lawfully in the cars, he is authorized to vindicate such right to the full extent which might be required for its protection." It may well be, as is often said, that resistance. here is not a prudent' remedy; but whether a right exists and whether it is prudent to exercise an existing right are somewhat different questions.

Again, when the ejection itself is lawful, but the manner or place of it are such as to expose the passenger to imminent peril of life or

2 Sanford v. Eighth Ave. R. Co., 23 N. Y. 343, 80 Am. Dec. 286; CHICAGO, ST. L. & P. R. CO. v. BILLS, 104 Ind. 13, 3 N. E. 611, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 320.

3 Zagelmeyer v. Cincinnati S. & M. R. Co., 102 Mich. 214, 60 N. W. 436, 47 Am. St. Rep. 514; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Russ, 67 Fed. 662, 14 C. C. A. 612; Ellsworth v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 95 Iowa, 98, 63 N. W. 584, 29 L. R. A. 173; Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Wolfe, 128 Ind. 347, 27 N. E. 606, 25 Am. St. Rep. 436; Denver Tramway Co. v. Reed, 4 Colo. App. 500, 36 Pac. 557; New York, L. E. & W R. Co. v. Winter, 143 U. S. 60, 12 Sup. Ct. 356, 36 L. Ed. 71; Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co. v. Lockman, 49 Ind. App. 143, 96 N. E. 970; English v. Delaware & H. Canal Co., 66 N. Y. 454, 23 Am. Rep. 69; Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Wolfe, 128 Ind. 347, 27 N. E. 606, 25 Am. St. Rep. 436. In the last two cases the passenger had paid his fare, and was ejected for refusal to pay again. He was in each case permitted to recover for injuries due to his resistance.

4 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hogue, 50 Kan. 40, 31 Pac. 698; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Cornell, 112 Ill. 295, 54 Am. Rep. 238; Gibson v. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. (C. C.) 30 Fed. 904; Monnier v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 175 N. Y. 281, 67 N. E. 569, 62 L. R. A. 357, 96 Am. St. Rep. 619; Randell v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 102 Mo. App. 342, 76 S. W. 493.

English v. Delaware & H. Canal Co., 66 N. Y. 454, 23 Am. Rep. 69.

• English v. Delaware & H. Canal Co., 66 N. Y. 454, 23 Am. Rep. 69. Hufford v. Grand Rapids & T. Ry. Co., 53 Mich, 118, 18 N. W. 580.