## Facts

- The Chicago & Northwestern Railway operated a passenger train with: (1) a smoking car, (2) a main first-class car that was full, and (3) a “ladies’ car” reserved for unaccompanied women and men traveling with women.
- Bass, an unaccompanied man with a first-class ticket, refused to ride in the smoking car and sought to enter the ladies’ car.
- Bass had previously been permitted to sit in the ladies’ car when the main first-class car was full; evidence suggested other unaccompanied men had sometimes been allowed the same accommodation.
- At a stop, Bass found the ladies’ car door locked and stood on its platform; a brakeman unlocked the door and Bass entered and walked down the aisle.
- A brakeman and another person forcibly removed Bass from the ladies’ car and pushed him back onto the platform while the train was moving over an open bridge.
- Bass suffered cuts and bruises, and his ring and cane were damaged.
- Testimony conflicted as to whether Bass was told he could not enter or remain in the ladies’ car.

## Issues

1. Whether a railroad’s rule reserving a “ladies’ car” for women and men accompanying women is a reasonable passenger regulation.
2. Whether the railroad’s occasional prior relaxation of that rule barred it from enforcing the rule against Bass on the trip in question.
3. Whether, even if Bass violated a valid rule, the railroad could be liable for injuries and property damage caused by unnecessary, violent, or dangerous methods of removal.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the plaintiff’s judgment and ordered a new trial.
- The court held the ladies’ car regulation was reasonable and could be enforced.
- The court held prior inconsistent enforcement did not, by itself, forfeit the railroad’s right to insist on compliance on a later occasion.
- The court held the railroad could still be liable if its employees used excessive, unnecessary, or unreasonably dangerous force in enforcing the rule.
- The trial court’s instruction that inconsistent enforcement could eliminate the railroad’s right to apply the rule to Bass was erroneous and required a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A common carrier may adopt and enforce reasonable regulations governing passenger seating and car assignment for passenger comfort, safety, and propriety, including reserving a car for women and their escorts.
- Occasional indulgence or nonenforcement of a reasonable regulation does not permanently waive or extinguish the carrier’s authority to enforce the rule according to its terms.
- A carrier enforcing a valid regulation may use only force reasonably necessary to secure compliance; it remains responsible for unnecessary violence or negligent conduct that unreasonably endangers a passenger, even if the passenger is in violation.

## Conclusion

The court recognized the railroad’s continuing authority to enforce a reasonable ladies’-car rule despite past exceptions, but required that liability be assessed based on whether the railroad’s agents employed unreasonable or dangerous force in removal, warranting a new trial due to erroneous jury instructions.


Bass v. Chi. & Nw. Ry. Co., 36 Wis. 450 (Wis. 1874)