{
  "id": 11271071,
  "name": "ANNIE L. HUFFMAN v. SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Huffman v. Southern Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1913-09-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "171",
  "last_page": "173",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "163 N.C. 171"
    }
  ],
  "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": "94 N. C., 321",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 N. C., 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651463
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/142/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 N. C., 47",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270334
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/146/0047-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 277,
    "char_count": 3723,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.439,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2935470748480064e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6204628146274165
    },
    "sha256": "ac216ac25ba6812946f0e049fb192aec5fc2d89e284838591b7621928cafc3b7",
    "simhash": "1:ec6646ca3ecd981d",
    "word_count": 642
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:17:53.185686+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ANNIE L. HUFFMAN v. SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BeowN, J.\nTbe jury found tbat defendant\u2019s conductor did maliciously, willfully, wantonly, and rudely mistreat and humiliate plaintiff while a passenger on its train.\nTbe only exception necessary to consider relates to the issue as to damage.\nTbe plaintiff was a passenger on tbe defendant\u2019s train, having her child over 9 years old with her, but no ticket for tbe child. Tbe conductor rightfully demanded payment of tbe child\u2019s fare. As to what occurred then, there is a marked conflict of evidence. Plaintiff testifies tbat she reached down in her purse to get tbe child\u2019s fare, when tbe conductor publicly and without cause wantonly insulted her by telling her tbat \u201cshe was nothing but a cheap, common scalawag of a woman, or otherwise she would have purchased a ticket for tbe child.\u201d\nPlaintiff says this \u201cgot her dander up,\u201d and tbat she retaliated by calling tbe conductor a dirt dauber, and saying \u201cshe would whip him in twenty minutes but for tbe disgrace; tbat tbe conduct of tbe conductor and bis remarks made her sick; tbat she bad never bad her feelings hurt so bad; tbat she bad never been so insulted in her life; tbat there were a great many ladies and gentlemen on tbe train, and tbat they looked at her bard.\u201d\nTbe conductor testified tbat be asked plaintiff for tbe child\u2019s fare, and she emphatically refused to pay it; tbat be told her be bad no right to pass a 9-year-old child free; tbat plaintiff then said tbat she would pay it, but she knew why be was so persistent ; tbat be wanted to put it into bis pocket and put it to bis own use; tbat be then told her tbat she was a woman and a cheap-skate, and that be would not say anything more to her about it, and tbat she abused him all tbe way, calling him a rascal, scoundrel, and many other epithets.\nTbe contention tbat tbe defendant is not liable for tbe conductor\u2019s conduct, whatever at tbe time it may have been, cannot be maintained. He was in charge of the train, collecting tickets, acting witbin the scope of his authority, and a vice-principal representing defendant. Under the facts of this case, ratification was not necessary to render defendant responsible for his act. Stewart v. Lumber Co., 146 N. C., 47; Sawyer v. R. R., 142 N. C., 1.\nUpon the issue of damages, the judge stated the evidence and contentions of both sides fully and instructed the jury that in order to warrant the awarding of punitive \u25a0 damages in their sound discretion, they must previously find that the conductor first maliciously, willfully, and wantonly insulted the plaintiff.\nHis Honor followed the well settled decisions of this Court. Holmes v. R. R., 94 N. C., 321, and cases cited in notes.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BeowN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel for the plaintiff.",
      "J. L. Barham fon the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ANNIE L. HUFFMAN v. SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY.\n(Filed 24 September, 1913.)\n1. Railroads \u2014 Principal and Agent \u2014 Conductor\u2014Malicious Abuse of Passenger \u2014 Scope of Employment.\nTlie use of abusive and insulting language to a female passenger, by a conductor on a passenger train, because she had not purchased a ticket for a 9-year-old child, traveling with her, is an act done within the scope of his employment, and binding upon tlie railroad, without its ratification, as an act of its vice-principal.\n2. Railroads \u2014 Conductor\u2014Malicious Abuse of Passenger \u2014 Punitive Damages.\nA railroad company is liable in punitive damages for the willful, wanton, and malicious abuse by its conductor of a female passenger traveling on his train, occasioned by her not having purchased a ticket for her 9-year-old child traveling with her.\nAppeal by defendant from Carter, J., at April Term, 1913, of WAYNE.\nCivil action. Tbe facts are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion of tbe Court by Mr. Justice Brown.\nNo counsel for the plaintiff.\nJ. L. Barham fon the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0171-01",
  "first_page_order": 217,
  "last_page_order": 219
}