BBOWN V. UBUPHIS & 0. B. 00. 68 �BQnably, wouH entitle the plaintiflf to recovei only cbm- pensatory, and not punitive damages, and chargea that Bucb a state of faets -would only go to mitigate the damages. There is, on the facts of this case, no room, perhaps, to say unqualifiedly that the conduetor acted without malice, and there is prOof tending to establish at least wanton- ness of conduct ; and the rule is well settled that the Com- pany is responsible for wilful injuries by conductors act- iseg under a pretence of performing a duty or carrying out orders. Pierce on Bailroads, 279. But assuming that he did act without malice, the charge seems to me to be correct. There is, undoubtedly, a class of cases -where malice or gtoss negligence, showing a reckless indifference to the rights of others, is neeessary to entitle the plaintiff to exemplary dam- ages. MUwaukee R. Co. v. Arms, 91 U. S. 492; PhUa. -H. <7o. V. Quigley, 21 How. 213; Day v. Woodworth, 13 How. 369. But this does not always mean simply the personal malice of the conduetor or agent of the corporation. Where that exists, or his conduct is "wanton, gross, and outrageons, and in the nature of a personal indignity," vindictive dam- ages are allowed ; but, in its absence, punitive damages may be inflicted as a method of enforcing upon the corporation obedience to the dnties required of it as a common carrier, even in cases where no personal spite can be possible. The only way carriers of passengers can be held to reasonable regulations is by allowing juries to inflict punitive damages for a violation of the rights of the public ; and the establish- ment of unreasonable regulations is the gravamen of the offence, that being a disregard of the rights of the public for which the carrier is punished. The mere price of a ticket, or refunding of the money, will not answer the purpose in all cases; that would be simply to permit the carrier to enforce the unreasonable regulation, because he should never claim to keep the money while ref using to render the service. He would take no money. or refund all received, and go on with his business in his own way, and the plaintiff, or the public, would be no better off. This rule of damages would be simply rescind- jng the contract of carriage, which is all the carrier demands. ��� �
