Murphy v. Western & A. R. R.
23 F. 637 (1885)
Rule of Law:
A railroad that chooses to segregate passengers by race must provide substantially equal accommodations for all passengers paying the same fare. Additionally, a railroad has a duty to protect its passengers from foreseeable injury by other passengers, and is liable for such injury if its employees fail to make a reasonable effort to intervene.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, a colored man, purchased a first-class ticket for passage on the Western & Atlantic railroad.
- He took a seat in the rear car of the train, which was designated as a 'ladies' car,' although no ladies were present at the time.
- The conductor informed the plaintiff that colored people were not permitted in that car and that he must move to the forward car, a smoking car.
- The plaintiff refused to move, after which a brakeman moved his luggage to the forward car without his consent.
- Later in the journey, two white passengers boarded the train and, incited by a news vendor, forcibly dragged the plaintiff from his seat and into the forward car.
- During the assault, the plaintiff's hand was lacerated and his back was wrenched.
- The train's conductor and other employees witnessed the assault but did not intervene to protect the plaintiff.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the railroad company, the train conductor, a brakeman, and one of the passengers who had assaulted him.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial in a federal trial court.
- At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence, the trial judge delivered these instructions on the applicable law to the jury.
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 company violate its duty to a passenger when it fails to provide accommodations equal to those of white passengers for the same fare and fails to protect him from being forcibly removed from his seat by other passengers due to his race?
Opinions:
Majority - Key, J.
Yes. A railroad company violates its duty when it provides inferior accommodations to a colored passenger who has paid the same first-class fare as a white passenger, and it is liable for injuries inflicted upon that passenger by others when its employees fail to intervene. While a railroad may establish rules for passenger seating, including separating passengers by race or designating a car for ladies, such rules must be reasonable and impartial. If a carrier sells only first-class tickets, it must provide first-class accommodations to all; sending a colored passenger to an inferior smoking car while white passengers occupy a more desirable car is an unlawful discrimination. Furthermore, a railroad has an affirmative duty to protect its passengers from insult and injury. When the company's agents, like the conductor and brakeman, witness an assault and fail to make any effort to prevent it, the railroad is liable for the resulting harm.
Analysis:
This pre-Plessy v. Ferguson case articulates an early version of the 'separate but equal' doctrine but rigorously insists on the 'equal' component, finding that qualitatively different accommodations for the same fare constitute illegal discrimination. It establishes that segregation cannot be a pretext for providing inferior services. The decision also reinforces the high duty of care a common carrier owes to its passengers, clarifying that this duty includes protection from the misconduct of other passengers and that employee inaction in the face of foreseeable harm can create liability for the company.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Murphy v. Western & A. R. R. (1885)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"