Bass v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.
36 Wis. 450 (1874)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A common carrier's reasonable regulation for passenger comfort and safety, such as a designated ladies' car, must be obeyed by passengers. A passenger's contractual right to a seat does not entitle them to forcibly violate such a regulation when forbidden by train staff; the proper remedy is an action for breach of contract.
Facts:
- A railroad company maintained a regulation that designated one car on each passenger train primarily for the use of women and men accompanying them.
- A male passenger traveling alone on one of the company's trains could not find a seat, as all cars were full except for the smoking car and the ladies' car.
- After being left to stand in a general passenger car, the man proceeded to the ladies' car to find a seat.
- Upon reaching the ladies' car, he entered or attempted to enter it.
- A brakeman for the railroad company then forcibly ejected the passenger onto the car's platform while the train was in motion and crossing a river bridge.
- The evidence presented was conflicting as to whether the passenger was forbidden from entering before he attempted to do so, or whether he used force to try and enter.
Procedural Posture:
- The passenger (plaintiff) sued the railroad company (defendant) in the trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- The trial judge instructed the jury that if no other seats were available, the passenger had a right to enter the ladies' car despite the regulation.
- The judge refused the railroad company's request for an instruction stating that a passenger attempting to enter after being refused admittance is a wrongdoer who can be removed with sufficient force.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the passenger.
- The railroad company (appellant) appealed the judgment to this court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a railroad's failure to provide a seat in general passenger cars give a male passenger the right to forcibly enter a designated 'ladies' car' in violation of the railroad's regulation and against the orders of its employees?
Opinions:
Majority - Ryan, C. J.
No. A passenger's right to a seat does not give him the right to forcibly enter a restricted car in violation of a reasonable regulation after being forbidden to do so by train officials. The court held that the regulation setting aside a car for women was eminently reasonable and proper for the safety and comfort of passengers. While the railroad breached its duty by failing to provide the passenger a seat, the passenger's remedy is not to resort to forcible self-help. The authority of the train's officers to enforce reasonable regulations and maintain order is paramount for the safety of all passengers. Therefore, a passenger who is denied entry must submit to that authority and seek redress for the breach of contract through a legal action. The trial court erred by instructing the jury that the passenger had a right to enter the car if no other seat was available, as this failed to consider whether his entry was peaceable and licensed or forcible and forbidden.
Analysis:
This case establishes a crucial balance between a common carrier's power to regulate its operations and its contractual duties to passengers. It affirms that carriers can create and enforce reasonable regulations for passenger segregation and comfort, likening their duty to that of innkeepers. The decision's primary significance lies in its rejection of forcible 'self-help' as a remedy for passengers; it mandates that passengers must submit to the authority of train personnel, even when the carrier is in breach of contract. This precedent reinforces the hierarchical authority structure on public transport, prioritizing collective order and safety over an individual's immediate assertion of rights, and channels such disputes into the legal system rather than allowing them to be resolved by force.
Unlock the full brief for Bass v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.