{
  "id": 8658122,
  "name": "M. F. PHILLIPS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Phillips v. Southern Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1899-03-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "123",
  "last_page": "127",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "124 N.C. 123"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "34 At. Rep., 157",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 Mass., 298",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "case_ids": [
        797257
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/161/0298-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 385,
    "char_count": 7531,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.447,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.9359626484752934e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8477281880140503
    },
    "sha256": "05fab452eaaf1855ad161079c62f9ab12e4bbd4d40b21ae42fec6d29ef1c57a7",
    "simhash": "1:9e6679c616b095c9",
    "word_count": 1309
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:09:58.946028+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "M. F. PHILLIPS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Fueches, J.\nOn the 15th of December, 1896, the plaintiff, intending to take the next train on defendant\u2019s road to' Hot Springs, in Madison County, entered the defendant\u2019s waiting-room at Asheville about eight o\u2019clock at night, with the intention of remaining there until the departure of the next train on defendant\u2019s road for Hot Springs, which would leave at 1:20 o\u2019clock of the next morning. He was informed by defendant\u2019s agent, in charge of the waiting-room, that according to the rules of the company, she must close the room and that he would have to get out. The plaintiff protested against this, and refused to leave.\nBut when the clerk of defendant\u2019s baggage department (Graham) came and told him that he could not stay, and made demonstrations as if be would put bim out, be left; that be bad no place to go-where be could be comfortable; that the night was cold; that be was thinly clad and suffered very much from this exposure, and took violent cold therefrom, which ran into a spell of sickness from which his health has been permanently injured.\nIt wars in evidence, and not disputed, that the rules of defendant company required the' waiting-room to be closed after the departure of defendant\u2019s train, and to remain closed until thirty minutes before the departure of its next train; that, under this rule of the defendant, it was time to close the waiting-room when the, plaintiff was ordered to leave the room, and he was informed that it woul<J not be opened again until thirty minutes before the departure of defendant\u2019s next train at 1.20 o\u2019clock of the next morning. f\nThe plaintiff contended, that ho had purchased a ticket from Asheville to Hot Springs before he entered the waiting-room, which he showed to the keeper of the room at the time he was ordered out. This was denied by defendant.\nThe defendant asked in writing a great number of instructions which were not given. Among these was the following: \u201cIf the jury believe the evidence, the answer to the first issue should be \u201cNo.\u201d The first issue was as follows: \u201cWas the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint. ?\u201d\nThe Court among other things charged the jury that if the plaintiff bought a ticket to take passage on the next train, he had a right to remain in the waiting-room until that train left, and that if the jury found from the evidence that plaintiff had bought a ticket and exhibited it, as he alleges he did, he is entitled to recover actual damages, but not punitive damages. To that part of the charge referring to the piir-chase of the ticket and plaintiff\u2019s right to remain in the waiting-room, the defendant excepted.\nWe are of tbe opinion that both these exceptions are well taken, but it is not necessary that we should discuss them both. If either one of them is sustained, it is substantially an end to the plaintiff\u2019s case. In fact, the discussion of the one involves the other.\nA party coming to the railroad station with the intention of taking the defendant\u2019s next train becomes, in contemplation of law, a passenger on defendant\u2019s road, provided that his coming is within a reasonable time before the time for departure of said train. To constitute him such passenger it is not necessary that he should have purchased his ticket, as seems to have been considered by his Honor. 1 Fetter on Carriers of Passengers, section 228. But the purchase of the ticket would probably be considered the highest evidence of his intention. But still, it is his coming to the station within a reasonable time before, with the intention to take the next train, that creates the relation of passenger and carrier. There is no dispute but what the plaintiff intended to take the defendant\u2019s next train to Hot Springs, and w'e must infer from the charge of the Court and the verdict of the jury that they found that plaintiff had purchased his ticket.\nSo the only question that remains is as to whether the defendant had the right to establish the rule for closing the waiting-room, and was the rule a reasonable one? And we are of the opinion that the defendant had the right, to establish the rule and that it was a reasonable one. Webster v. Fitchburg R. Co., 161 Mass., 298; 34 At. Rep., 157; 1 Elliott on Railroads, sections 199 and 200; 4 Elliott on Railroads, section 1579.\nThe rule would probably be different' in the case of through passengers, and .in the case of delayed trains; but if so, these would be exceptions and'not the rule.\nWaiting-rooms are not a part of the ordinary duties pertaining to tbe rights of passengers and common carriers. But they are established by carriers as ancillaries to the business of carriers and for the accommodation of passengers, and not as a place of lodging and accommodation for those who are not passengers. This being so, it must be that the carrier should have a reasonable control over the same, or it could not protect its passengers in said rooms. There is error.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Fueches, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. G. F. Bason, F. H. Busbee and A. B. Andrews, Jr., for defendant (appellant).",
      "Mr. T. J. Biclcman, for plaintiff.-"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "M. F. PHILLIPS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.\n(Decided March 7, 1899).\nCarrier and Passengers \u2014 Railroad Regulations.\n1. It is the coming to the station within a reasonable time, with the intention to take the next train, and not the purchase of a ticket (which is merely evidence of the intention), that creates the relation of passenger and carrier.\n2. Railroads have reasonable control over their waiting-rooms and the right to establish regulations for the opening and closing of the same \u2014 they are not lodging places.\n3. A regulation which requires the opening of the waiting rooms not less than thirty minutes before the arrival of trains, and their closing after the departure of trains, is a reasonable regulation for the accommodation of passengers; the case of delayed trains and through passengers might form exceptions to the rule.\nCivil ActioN to recover damages, alleged to bave been occasioned by tbe wrongful ejection of the plaintiff from the depot waiting-room, at Asheville, by defendant, tried before Green, J., at May Term, 1898, of the Superior Court of HbNdeesoN County.\nIt was'in evidence that the plaintiff, a resident of Henderson County, bought a ticket at Asheville for passage to Hot Springs, in Madison County; that he procured his ticket about dark- on December 15, 1896, at the depot, the train to leave at 2 o\u2019clock A. M. of December 16; that he left the depot and went up town to make some purchases, and returned about 8 o\u2019clock, and went into the waiting-room to remain until his train was to leave. Soon after he had entered, the employee of the defendant company came in to close up and required hiTn to leave. He objected and showed his ticket, but upon demonstrations made to put bim out, he left, and having no money to pay for accommodations awaited in the dark and cold for the arrival of his train, and that his health was seriously affected by the exposure1.\nIt was in evidence on the part of the defendant that the rules of the company required th\u00e9 closing of the waiting-rooms after the departure of trains, to remain closed until thirty minutes before the departure of its next train, and that the plaintiff was so informed.\nUpon the evidence the defendant insisted the plaintiff was not entitled to recover and asked his Honor so to charge. This his Honor declined to do \u2014 and in effect charged the other way. Defendant excepted.\nVerdict and judgment for plaintiff for $5'00.\nAppeal by defendant.\nMessrs. G. F. Bason, F. H. Busbee and A. B. Andrews, Jr., for defendant (appellant).\nMr. T. J. Biclcman, for plaintiff.-"
  },
  "file_name": "0123-01",
  "first_page_order": 151,
  "last_page_order": 155
}