{
  "id": 11252160,
  "name": "MISSOURI WHITE v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "White v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1916-09-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "31",
  "last_page": "32",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "172 N.C. 31"
    }
  ],
  "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": "140 N. C., 125",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 227,
    "char_count": 3442,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.479,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3800420410610812
    },
    "sha256": "91fa06418f233856c20124b0b90597c3301d64305349103c6a6e40767df05781",
    "simhash": "1:d422fe680c3a09e2",
    "word_count": 600
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:21:58.562423+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MISSOURI WHITE v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EbowN, J.\nThe evidence tends to prove that on 19 November, 1914, the plaintiff, accompanied by her little daughter, purchased from the defendant\u2019s agent at Mackeys Ferry a ticket to Chapanoke, upon the assurance of the agent that the ticket was good for continuous passage upon the through train of the defendant, which passed Mackeys Ferry about 1 o\u2019clock. ITpon inquiry, the agent assured her that there would be no change of trains at Edenton.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s husband, by arrangement, met this through train , at Chapanoke to carry his wife to their home, some distance in the country. As the plaintiff did not arrive on this train, the husband returned home. When this train of the defendant, which runs from New Bern to Norfolk, and passes Mackeys Ferry, arrived at Edenton, the conductor for the first time informed her that this train did not stop at Chapanoke, and told the plaintiff that if she did not get off at Edenton he would carry her on to some other point.\nPlaintiff was compelled to get off at Edenton and take the next train, an hour or more later, which was a local train and stopped at Chap-anoke. When she arrived at Chapanoke her husband had gone home. It was a rainy, blustery day, and plaintiff was subjected to much inconvenience by reason of having to change trains at Edenton.\nThe motion to nonsuit was properly overruled.\nThe plaintiff had the right to rely upon the assurance of the agent that the train which she took at Mackeys Ferry would .stop at Chapanoke to put her off. It was the duty of the agent, when he sold a ticket to Chapanoke, to inform the plaintiff that she would have to take a local train at Edenton and would arrive at Chapanoke some time after the other train had passed. Upon the assurance of the defendant\u2019s agent, the plaintiff had reason to believe that she would meet her husband there to take her and her little daughter to their home. Hutchinson v. R. R., 140 N. C., 125, and cases cited.\nHis Honor very properly ruled that there is no evidence upon which the jury would be justified in awarding punitive damage.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EbowN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. M. Meelcins for plaintiff.",
      "O. M. Bain and J. Kenyon Wilson for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MISSOURI WHITE v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.\n(Filed 13 September, 1916.)\nCarriers of Passengers \u2014 Ejection from Train \u2014 Through Trains \u2014 Change of Trains \u2014 Damages.\nThe ticket agent of a railroad company should inform the purchaser of a ticket for a through train whether or not this train will stop at the passenger\u2019s destination; and where a female passenger on such train, traveling with her child, has been informed by the ticket agent that the train will stop at her destination, and while on the train she was, for the first time, informed by the conductor that she will have to get off at a nearer station and take a local train, in consequence of which she was not met by her husband, as they had prearranged, and suffers inconvenience and annoyance by reason of the enforced change for the local train: Held, the ejection from the train was wrongful, making the company liable for the passenger\u2019s actual but not punitive damages.\nCivil actioN tried at January Term, 1916, of PasquotaNK, before Bond, J., upon these issues:\n1. Did defendant wrongfully put or cause plaintiff to get off its train at Edenton, as alleged? Answer: \u201cYes.\u201d\n2. If so, what damage, if any, did the plaintiff sustain thereby? Answer: \u201c$50.\u201d\nFrom the judgment rendered, the defendant appealed.\nJ. M. Meelcins for plaintiff.\nO. M. Bain and J. Kenyon Wilson for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0031-01",
  "first_page_order": 97,
  "last_page_order": 98
}