Tomlinson v. Wilmington & Sea-Coast Railroad

Avery, J. after stating the facts: The rule laid down by this Court in Rose v. Railroad, 106 N. C., 170, was, that “ where a passenger is unlawfully expelled from a railway train, he is entitled to recover the actual damages that he sustained therefrom, and if the expulsion is attended with undue force, or other aggravating circumstances calculated to humiliate the passenger, or wound his pride, or if the *330 passenger be lawfully ejected, but undue force used, accompanied by fraud, or an exhibition of malice, rudeness, recklessness, or other wilful wrong, such exemplary damages may be allowed as the jury think are warranted by the facts.” Knowles v. Railroad, 102 N. C., 66; Holmes v. Railroad, 94 N. C., 318. We concur in the conclusion reached by his Honor, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover in any view of the evidence, and it is needless, in support of our opinion, to do more than reproduce what has already been said by this Court in one case, and cite others sustaining the same principle. “ The fact that the plaintiff was wrongfully expelled places him in no more favorable attitude, as a claimant of punitive damages, than if he had been rightfully ejected, but in an unlawful and unwarranted manner, or with undue force. It is an essential prerequisite to the acquisition of the right to recover exemplary damages for the wrongful expulsion of a passenger from a train, that there should be evidence of undue force, unnecessary rudeness in the application of the force, or insult, malice, or some wilful wrong accompanying the act of ejecting him, or causing him to leave the train.” Rose v. Railroad, supra, and authorities there cited. There is no error, and the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.