Hill v. Kimball

Citation13 S.W. 59
CourtSupreme Court of Texas
Decision Date14 February 1890
PartiesHILL <I>et al.</I> <I>v.</I> KIMBALL.

J. D. Childs, for appellants. Gammage & Gammage, for appellee.

GAINES, J.

The case presented by the petition in this suit being novel, we were in doubt whether the facts alleged showed a cause of action, and for that reason set aside the submission at the last term, and requested counsel to submit arguments upon that question. The question has been argued, and the cause again submitted for determination. The defendant below, the appellee here, interposed an exception to the petition on the ground that he was not sued in the county of his residence, and the exception was sustained by the court. The correctness of that ruling depends upon the nature of the suit. The petition alleges, in substance, that plaintiffs were husband and wife, and were in possession under a lease of a dwelling-house and land belonging to defendant; that the wife was well advanced in pregnancy, and that defendant knew the fact, and that he was also aware that any undue excitement to a lady in that condition was likely to produce a serious injury to her health; that, notwithstanding these facts, he came to plaintiff's house, and in the yard, and in the immediate presence of the wife, he assaulted two negroes in a boisterous and violent manner, and that the assault was accompanied with profane language, and resulted in drawing blood. It was also alleged that defendant's conduct frightened Mrs. Hill, and brought on the pains of labor, and eventually produced a miscarriage, and otherwise seriously impaired her health.

After a very careful consideration of the petition, we are of opinion that its allegations show a cause of action. We have found no exact precedent for such an action, but that is no sufficient reason why an action should not be sustained. That a physical personal injury may be produced through a strong emotion of the mind there can be no doubt. The fact that it is more difficult to produce such an injury through the operation of the mind than by direct physical means affords no sufficient ground for refusing compensation, in an action at law, when the injury is intentionally or negligently inflicted. It may be more difficult to prove the connection between the alleged cause and the injury, but if it be proved, and the injury be the proximate result of the cause, we cannot say that a recovery should not be had. Probably an action will not lie when there is no injury except the suffering of the fright itself, but such is not the present case. Here, according to the allegations in the petition, the defendant has produced a bodily injury by means of that emotion, and it is for that injury that the recovery is sought. If, in his assault upon the negroes, he had discharged a missile at one of them, and it had missed its aim, and had struck Mrs. Hill, and produced a miscarriage, there is no doubt that he would be liable to an action; and it seems to us he should be equally held liable for the same result, produced by the same conduct, except that in the one case the means of the injury is a material substance, and in the other a mental emotion. Of course, since there is no intent to injure Mrs. Hill alleged, it will be a question for the jury to determine whether his conduct, so far as she was concerned, was negligent or not; that is to say, whether, under the circumstances, and with the lights before him, a reasonably prudent man would have anticipated the danger to her or not. We have been cited by counsel for appellee to the case of Renner v. Canfield, 36 Minn. 90, 30 N. W. Rep. 435. In that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
141 cases
  • Ledger v. Tippitt, B-005211
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 8, 1985
    ...church).) However, cases have also allowed recovery where the witness was not related to the actual victim. (See e.g., Hill v. Kimball (1890) 76 Tex. 210, 13 S.W. 59 (landlord came to his tenant's yard and assaulted two Blacks in a violent manner drawing blood in the presence of the tenant'......
  • Bennight v. Western Auto Supply Co., 13838
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • April 4, 1984
    ..."presumed," "implied," "constructive," or even "transferred"--various Texas decisions illustrate the principle. Hill v. Kimball, 76 Tex. 210, 13 S.W. 59 (1890) (defendant liable to bystander, a pregnant woman who miscarried, for injuries sustained by her if proximately caused by defendant's......
  • Amaya v. Home Ice, Fuel & Supply Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • March 12, 1963
    ...(at p. 301 of 179 Cal., at p. 441 of 176 P.) that 'there is excellent authority to the contrary,' citing Hill v. Kimball (1890, Tex.) 76 Tex. 210, 13 S.W. 59, 7 L.R.A. 618, Wilkinson v. Downton (1897) 2 Q.B. 57, and Cohn v. Ansonia Realty Co. (1914, App.Div.) 162 App.Div. 791, 148 N.Y.S. 39......
  • Reagan v. Vaughn
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • December 19, 1990
    ...this cause of action, we should follow suit. "[T]hat is no sufficient reason why an action should not be sustained." Hill v. Kimball, 76 Tex. 210, 13 S.W. 59, 59 (1890). This observation remains valid today.Commentators generally favor recognition of a cause of action for loss of parental c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Car Accident Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Small-firm Practice Tools. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • May 5, 2022
    ...limited circumstances) around 1900. [ Parkway Co. v. Woodruff , 901 S.W.2d 434, 442-444 (Tex. 1995) (citing Hill v. Kimball , 76 Tex. 210, 13 S.W. 59 (Tex. 1890 and S.F. Ry. Co. v. Hayter , 93 Tex. 239, 54 S.W. 944 (Tex. 1900).] The term “mental anguish” implies a relatively high degree of ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT