Brown v. Memphis & C. R.

United States Circuit Court
7 F. 51 (1881)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A common carrier may not exclude a passenger from a particular class of accommodation, such as a 'ladies' car,' based solely on the passenger's private reputation for immorality, so long as the passenger's public conduct is proper and unobjectionable.

Facts:

The plaintiff was a woman who had a reputation in her community for being unchaste.
Despite this reputation, she was regularly employed by prominent families to serve at social gatherings and to nurse them in sickness.
The plaintiff purchased a first-class ticket for travel on the defendant railroad company's train.
She entered and took a seat by herself in the designated 'ladies' car.'
Her behavior and dress on this occasion were orderly, quiet, and unobjectionable.
The conductor, who knew of her reputation, ordered her to move to a different car where smoking was allowed and which was occupied by passengers who paid a lower fare.
The plaintiff refused to move from the 'ladies' car.'
The conductor then forcibly ejected the plaintiff from her seat and from the car, causing her physical injury.

Procedural Posture:

The plaintiff sued the defendant railroad company in federal district court for wrongful ejection.
The defendant filed a special plea and a demurrer, which the court previously ruled upon.
The case proceeded to a trial before a jury.
The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded her $3,000 in damages.
The defendant then filed a motion for a new trial, which is the subject of the present opinion.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a common carrier's regulation that excludes a female passenger from the 'ladies' car' solely based on her reputation for unchastity, despite her proper conduct and possession of a first-class ticket, a reasonable regulation?

Opinions:

Majority - Hammond, D. J.

No. A regulation that excludes a passenger based on their private moral character rather than their public conduct is unreasonable. A common carrier has a duty to carry all passengers who pay their fare and behave properly, and it cannot act as a censor of public morals. The carrier's right to exclude is limited to situations where a passenger's conduct is disruptive or where their reputation for a publicly-practiced vice gives the carrier reasonable grounds to believe they will annoy or injure other passengers. The term 'ladies' car' does not denote a space reserved only for women of unimpeachable private virtue, but rather for women whose public demeanor is genteel and modest. To allow conductors to exclude passengers based on rumors about their private lives would be an unreasonable power, subjecting any woman's character to trial by a railroad employee. As the plaintiff's conduct was entirely proper, her exclusion was wrongful.

Analysis:

This decision establishes a critical distinction between a passenger's public conduct and their private reputation, limiting a common carrier's authority to regulate its passengers. It prevents carriers from acting as 'moral police' by denying service or specific accommodations based on social standing or private character. The ruling reinforces the principle that a carrier's duty to protect passengers applies to actual or reasonably anticipated misconduct, not to abstract notions of morality. This precedent is significant in defining the scope of 'reasonable regulations' for public accommodation, setting a standard that focuses on tangible behavior rather than intangible reputation, thereby protecting individuals from arbitrary discrimination.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Brown v. Memphis & C. R. (1881)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"