Gillespie v. . Brooklyn Heights R.R. Co.
178 N.Y. 347, 70 N.E. 857, 16 Bedell 347 (1904)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A common carrier is liable for compensatory damages for injury to a passenger's feelings, such as humiliation and indignity, caused by the insulting and abusive language of its employee acting within the scope of employment. This liability arises from the carrier's absolute contractual duty to transport passengers safely and treat them respectfully.
Facts:
- The plaintiff was a passenger on the defendant's car.
- She provided the conductor with a quarter of a dollar to pay for her five-cent fare.
- The conductor accepted the quarter but refused to return the twenty cents in change to which the plaintiff was entitled.
- When the plaintiff requested her change, the conductor refused in an abusive and impudent manner.
- The conductor publicly insulted the plaintiff, calling her a "dead beat" and a "swindler" and using other improper language.
- This verbal abuse occurred in front of a fellow-passenger, who had informed the conductor that the plaintiff had indeed paid with a quarter.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant in the trial court.
- The trial court directed a verdict for the plaintiff for twenty cents only, refusing to submit the question of further damages to the jury.
- The plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment.
- The intermediate appellate court (Appellate Division) affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the decision of the Appellate Division to this court, the state's highest 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 common carrier's liability for a breach of its contract of carriage extend to compensatory damages for humiliation and mental suffering caused by the insulting language of its employee, beyond the actual monetary loss?
Opinions:
Majority - Martin, J.
Yes, a common carrier's liability extends to compensatory damages for humiliation and mental suffering caused by the insulting language of its employee. The relationship between a carrier and passenger involves a contract not just for safe transportation, but also for respectful and courteous treatment. The carrier has an absolute duty to protect its passengers from the misconduct of its own servants, and a breach of this duty is a tortious act. The conductor's insults were an incident to and accompanied his breach of the contract to return the passenger's change. Citing numerous authorities, the court established that damages for such a breach are not limited to the financial loss but include compensation for humiliation, wounded pride, and mental suffering, which are considered actual, compensatory damages, not punitive.
Dissenting - Gray, J.
No, a common carrier's liability should not be extended to cover damages for an employee's slanderous words. The dissent argues that making a common carrier answerable in damages for slanderous words spoken by one of its agents is an undue extension of the doctrine of carrier liability.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that a carrier's duty to a passenger encompasses not just physical safety but also respectful treatment. It establishes that verbal abuse by an employee can constitute a breach of the contract of carriage, giving rise to a claim for compensatory damages for emotional distress. By classifying damages for humiliation and mental suffering as compensatory rather than punitive, the court broadens the scope of recoverable injuries and reinforces that a carrier is strictly liable for its employees' conduct, including insults, committed during their employment.
Unlock the full brief for Gillespie v. . Brooklyn Heights R.R. Co.