Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Brief

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

  • Law School Case Brief

Gillespie v. Brooklyn H. R. Co. - 178 N.Y. 347, 70 N.E. 857 (1904)

Rule:

The carrier is obliged to protect his passenger from violence and insult from whatever source arising. He is not regarded as an insurer of his passenger's safety against every possible source of danger, but he is bound to use all such reasonable precautions as human judgment and foresight are capable of to make his passenger's journey safe and comfortable. He must not only protect his passenger against the violence and insults of strangers and co-passengers, but a fortiori, against the violence and insults of his own servants. If this duty to the passenger is not performed, if this protection is not furnished, but, on the contrary, the passenger is assaulted and insulted through the negligence or willful misconduct of the carrier's servant, the carrier is necessarily responsible.

Facts:

Appellant passenger paid her fare to the conductor on the railroad company's train. When she requested her change, the conductor subjected her to verbal abuse and refused to pay her the amount due. The appellant instituted a suit against the defendant railroad company, alleging breach of contract. The trial court ruled that the appellant was only entitled to nominal damages. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (New York) affirmed. Appellant challenged the order. 

Issue:

  1. Could the defendant railroad company be held liable for damages caused by the insulting language of its employee? 
  2. Under the circumstances, was the appellant passenger only entitled to nominal damages? 

Answer:

1) Yes. 2) No.

Conclusion:

Upon appeal, the court held that the railroad company had a duty to protect its passengers from violence and insult from whatever source it might arise. The railroad company was vicariously liable for the negligent or willful misconduct of its employees in insulting a passenger. The trial court erred in finding that the passenger was only entitled to her change. The passenger should have been entitled to recover for the compensatory damages she suffered by reason of the humiliation and injury to her feelings.

Access the full text case

Essential Class Preparation Skills

  • How to Answer Your Professor's Questions
  • How to Brief a Case
  • Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required)

Essential Class Resources

  • CivPro
  • Contracts
  • Constitutional Law
  • Corporations /Business Organizations
  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure/Investigation
  • Evidence
  • Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility
  • Property
  • Secured Transactions
  • Torts
  • Trusts & Estates