Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 Ala. App. 577

80 So 151

Lamb v. Mitchell

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided November 26, 1918

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1918-11-26

<p>1. Carriers <&wkey;275 — Passengers—Carriage Beyond Destination — Pleading.</p> <p>A complaint in a passenger’s action for carrying her beyond destination to which, she purchased a ticket is demurrable when it does not aver that the train on which she took passage was scheduled to stop at the station for which the ticket was purchased.</p> <p>2. Carriers <&wkey;262 — Passengers — Duty to Furnish Information.</p> <p>It is the duty of a carrier to furnish passengers and intended passengers with information as to its system and course of conduct as may be reasonably necessary to enable them to pursue their journey.</p> <p>3. Carriers <&wkey;251 — Passengers—Duty to Furnish Information — Authority of Ticket Agent.</p> <p>A ticket agent authorized to sell tickets has authority, on application of a passenger or intended passenger, to give information as to the proper train on which a ticket entitles the passenger to travel, and like information regarding the use of the ticket.</p> <p>4. Carriers <&wkey;>264 — Passengers — Duty of Passenger to Obtain Information.</p> <p>Ordinarily, it is the duty of a passenger on a railroajl to inform himself as to what train his ticket entitles his carriage upon, and the carrier need not volunteer such information, unless the schedule has been changed after the ticket has been sold, or such change has been made without giving the ordinary notice to the public.</p>

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1936

4 state decisions

Relies on Weed v. . the Panama Railroad Company · Ala. Great Southern Railroad v. Carmichael · Cormack v. . N.Y., N.H. H.R.R. Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1918-11-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BROWN, P. J.

¶1 [1] The gravamen of the first and second counts of the complaint is the'breach of the contract of carriage — the failure to transport the plaintiff to Standing Rock, the final destination of the ticket — and said counts were subject to the objection pointed out in the demurrers that they did not aver that the train upon which the plaintiff took passage was scheduled to pass and stop at Standing Rock. L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Maxwell, 190 Ala. 47, 66 South. 669; Southern Ry. Co. v. Farquhar, 192 Ala. 415, 68 South. 289; A. G. S. Ry. Co. v. Carmichael, 90 Ala. 19, 8 South. 87, 9 L. R. A. 388; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Thomason, 6 Ala. App. 365, 60 South. 506.

¶2 [2, 3] It is the duty of a carrier to furnish passengers and those who in good faith intend to become such with information as to its system and course of conduct as may be reasonably necessary to enable them to pursue their journey, and the passenger has the right to rely upon such information as -may be given by the carrier or its authorized ‘agents or employes. The authorities agree that a ticket agent authorized to sell tickets has authority, and that it is his duty, upon application of a passenger or intended passenger, to give information as to the proper train upon which a ticket entitles the passenger to travel, and other like information re *578 garding the use of the ticket. L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Thomason, supra; 4 Rul. Case Law, 1068, § 517; St. L. & S. W. R. R. Co. v. White, 99 Tex. 359, 89 S. W. 746, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 110, 122 Am. St. Rep. 631, and note 13 Ann. Cas. 965.

¶3 [4] Ordinarily, it is the duty of a passenger to inform himself as to what train his ticket entitles him to carriage upon, and no duty rests upon the carrier or its agents to volunteer such information, unless there has been a change in the schedule of its trains after the sale of the ticket to the passenger, or spch' change has been made without giving such notice to the public as is ordinarily given by well-conducted carriers of the same class. Sears v. Eastern R. Co., 14 Allen (Mass.) 433, 92 Am. Dec. 780 ; 4 R. C. L. 1068, §§ 517, 518; McKinley v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 137 Ky. 845, 127 S. W. 483, 2S L. R. A. (N. S.) 611; Gorden v. Manchester & L. R. Co., 52 N. H. 596, 13 Am. Rep. 97; Weed v. Panama R. Co., 17 N. Y. 362, 72 Am. Dec. 474; Cormack v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co., 196 N. Y. 442, 90 N. E. 56, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1209, 17 Ann. Cas. 949.

¶4 When these principles are applied, it is manifest that the demurrer to the third and fourth counts of the complaint should have been sustained.

¶5 There are other questions presented by the assignments of error, but as the pleadings must be amended and the issues will be different, we deem what has been said sufficient to guide the trial court on another trial, if the plaintiff sees 'fit to prosecute her suit further.

¶6 Reversed and remanded.

/16/alaapp/577 · .json · Public domain