¶1 dissenting. The only allegation in
¶2 the complaint of a wilful and wanton violation of the rights of -the plaintiff is that -the conductor or ticket collector on the train wilfully and wantonly gave the plaintiff incorrect information as to the time within which 'he could leave Union and reach Atlanta on one of defendant’® trains. There is no- 'evidence .whatever supporting 'this allegation. On the contrary, the plaintiff’s own evidence .shows that the ticket collector -treated him with- -a courtesy, and consideration Which negatived any intention -to disregard his rights as -a passenger. The -ticket ' collector, according toi plaintiff’s evidence, misled the plaintiff by hi-si erroneous statement as to the defendant's schedules, and for the consequences of the error -the passenger was’ entitled to recover his actual damages ; but the error of the ticket collector should not be held malicious, or wi-lfu-l, or-wanton without -evidence that it’was so, either -extraneous or in the circumstances under which the error was committed. The many -errors of men are -looked upon as mistakes due to human fallibility or to negligence, unless there is some evidence either direct or circumstantial of -malice, or wilfuines®, o-r wantonnes®. ''Neither in- -ethic® nor in lawr is there place for the harsh rule that malicious, or wilful, or wanton -disregard of the rights of others is to be presumed from proof -o-f a mere error or mistake.
¶3 I think the judgment -o-f the Circuit Court should be reversed.