Brumfield v. Consolidated Coach Corporation
40 S.W.2d 356, 240 Ky. 1 (1931)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A common carrier may establish and enforce reasonable, unwritten rules and regulations that are established by long-standing custom, and a passenger's ticket is subject to these rules. A carrier's oral rule allowing for telephone reservations of seats is reasonable and a valid defense for refusing passage to a ticket-holder when all available seats are either physically occupied or reserved.
Facts:
- On July 16, 1927, Lucille Brumfield, a Black woman, purchased a ticket from Consolidated Coach Corporation for bus transportation from Lexington to Danville, Kentucky.
- Consolidated Coach Corporation had a long-standing, unwritten rule and custom of allowing prospective passengers to reserve seats in advance by telephone.
- Prior to the 4:00 PM bus departure, two passengers from the Drake hotel in Lexington called and reserved the last two available seats on that bus.
- At approximately 4:00 PM, Brumfield presented her ticket to board the bus for Danville.
- The bus driver refused to allow Brumfield to board, informing her that although two seats appeared empty, they had been reserved for other passengers.
- The bus company offered Brumfield passage on the next bus to Danville, scheduled to leave around 5:00 PM, but she refused to accept it.
Procedural Posture:
- Lucille Brumfield filed an action against the Consolidated Coach Corporation in a Kentucky trial court, alleging breach of contract.
- The defendant, Consolidated Coach Corp., filed an amended answer asserting as a defense its unwritten rule of reserving seats by telephone.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.
- The trial court overruled the plaintiff's motions for a judgment non obstante verdicto (judgment notwithstanding the verdict) and for a new trial, entering judgment for the defendant.
- The plaintiff, Lucille Brumfield, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
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 common carrier breach its contract of carriage by refusing passage to a ticket-holder on a specific bus when vacant seats are being held for other passengers pursuant to the carrier's unwritten, customary rule of accepting telephone reservations?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Richardson
No. A common carrier does not breach its contract by refusing passage under these circumstances, as a ticket is subject to the carrier's reasonable, established customs, which need not be in writing. The court distinguished between internal corporate by-laws, which must be written, and regulations affecting passengers, which can be established by a uniform, generally known custom or usage. The authority to adopt reasonable regulations is incidental to the business of a common carrier, and such regulations are deemed reasonable if they promote the convenience, comfort, or safety of passengers. The rule allowing telephone reservations was found to be reasonable. A ticket does not grant a right to passage on a specific vehicle at a specific time but rather a right to transportation within a reasonable time. Therefore, refusing passage on the 4:00 PM bus in order to honor prior reservations made under a reasonable, customary rule was not a breach of the carrier's duty.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the power of common carriers to operate based on established customs and oral rules, not just formal, written regulations. It establishes that a ticket does not create an absolute right to travel on a specific vehicle at a particular time but is instead subject to the carrier's reasonable operational rules. The decision also underscores the importance of specific pleading, as the court noted the plaintiff's failure to explicitly allege racial discrimination as the cause for her denial of passage limited her ability to have that specific claim fully adjudicated.
Unlock the full brief for Brumfield v. Consolidated Coach Corporation