Curry Et Ux. v. Journal Pub. Co., 4173.
Decision Date | 03 May 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 4173.,4173. |
Citation | 68 P.2d 168,41 N.M. 318 |
Parties | CURRY et ux.v.JOURNAL PUB. CO. et al. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Dona Ana County; George W. Hay, Judge.
Action on the case by Clifford Curry and Angelita Curry, his wife, against the Journal Publishing Company and others. From a judgment for defendants after demurrers to the complaint were sustained, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed and remanded.
Person who intentionally and unreasonably subjects another to emotional distress, which he should recognize as likely to result in illness or other bodily harm, is liable for illness or other bodily harm resulting therefrom, though harm was not intended.
J. H. Paxton, of Las Cruces, for appellants.
Mechem & Hannett, of Albuquerque, for appellees.
This is an action on the case. The substance of the material facts alleged in the complaint are as follows:
The defendants (appellees here), in the year of 1932, published the Albuquerque Journal, a daily newspaper, circulating generally in New Mexico. On the 12th day of April, 1932, they published in that newspaper as a news item the following words:
“Hillsboro, N. M., April 11, (AP)-George Curry, 70, former territorial governor of New Mexico, Spanish-American war veteran and ex-congressman, died here Sunday afternoon.”
The published statement was false. George Curry was not dead, but was alive and in good health at the time. The George Curry mentioned in said article was and is the father of the plaintiff, Clifford Curry, who read said published statement regarding his father, with the result that he suffered great pain and anguish, and which caused a nervous shock, resulting in a heart attack. His health is permanently impaired to the extent that he is unable to perform labor, all brought about by his reading the false published statement. The plaintiff Angelita Curry is the wife of plaintiff Clifford Curry. She also suffered a physical shock and prostration from reading the article, resulting in the permanent impairment of her health, by reason of which she cannot perform physical labor, is unable to bear children, and has suffered great pain and anguish. She was pregnant at the time she read such article, and the child, born the following June, was so permanently injured by reason of the shock to its mother that through life it will be sick, decrepit, timid, hysterical, and suffering. Specific items of expense incurred, such as physician's bills, loss of time, trips, etc., are set out. Total damages were claimed in the sum of $13,592.
The parties will be styled plaintiffs and defendants, as in the district court.
The defendants demurred separately to the complaint upon the ground that it stated no cause of action; and the demurrers were sustained by the court. Plaintiffs refusing to amend, the suit was dismissed, and appeal to this court allowed and perfected.
No objection was made to the complaint because of misjoinder of causes of actions; nor for failure to separately state causes of action; nor because the defendants were not specifically charged with negligence. The appellees content themselves with raising the vital questions that determine the case; two of which are decisive: (1) Are damages that result from words negligently spoken or written, as distinguished from acts, actionable? and, if so, then, (2) Can damages be recovered from the publishers of a newspaper for the consequences of grief resulting in physical injury, occasioned by reading in such paper a negligently published false report of the death of the reader's parent?
[1][2] We have found no precedent in the books for this suit, and only two cases that are similar. This is conceded by appellant, but he asserts that, though this be true, such absence of precedent is not conclusive that the right claimed does not exist. To this we readily agree (Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co., 122 Ga. 190, 50 S.E. 68, 69 L.R.A. 101, 106 Am. St.Rep. 104, 2 Ann.Cas. 561); but it suggests that the existence of such right is not probable, in view of the fact that thousands of similar negligent acts must have occurred in the business of publication of news in this country, and Great Britain and its dependencies, causing grief and worry; though the disastrous consequences here charged (and which we must accept as true) are not, in human experience, usual or probable.
We have stated there are two similar cases. We first make reference to Jaillet v. Cashman, 115 Misc. 383, 189 N.Y.S. 743, 744. The facts as stated in the opinion are as follows:
From these facts, the court concluded:
The case was affirmed by the Appellate Division (202 App.Div. 805, 194 N.Y.S. 947) without an opinion; and upon appeal to the Court of Appeals the judgment of the Appellate Division was affirmed by memorandum opinion (235 N.Y. 511, 139 N.E. 714) with the following statement:
The New York courts evidently assumed that the legal principles supporting their conclusion that no such right existed, in the absence of a contract, fiduciary relationship, or intentional injury, were so well established that it was unnecessary to more than state the conclusion without giving reason or authority therefor. We might well follow this example; but appellant's exceptionally good presentation of their case, and apparent abiding faith that a cause of action had been stated, impels us to give our reasons for sustaining the judgment of the district court.
The other case referred to is Herrick v. Evening Express Publishing Co., 120 Me. 138, 113 A. 16, 17, 23 A.L.R. 358, the facts in which are quite similar to those in this case. The defendants in that case had published in their newspaper an account of the death of a boy then serving in the American Expeditionary Forces overseas, and in connection therewith a picture of another boy of the same name, who likewise was in the Army overseas. The mother of the boy whose picture was published saw it and read the article, from the shock of which she became seriously ill; and the suit for damages followed. In determining the case the court said:
The case, however, was decided mainly upon the proposition that, there being no physical injury from without, damages by reason of sickness from mental shock were outside the principle of compensation, following the rule in the leading case of Spade v. Lynn & B. R. Co., 168 Mass. 285, 47 N.E. 88, 38 L.R.A. 512, 60 Am.St.Rep. 393. We do not find it necessary to decide this question, though...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Decker v. Princeton Packet, Inc.
...Edmonds, 157 F.Supp. 649 (E.D.Va.1958); Cardiff v. Brooklyn Eagle, Inc., 190 Misc. 730, 75 N.Y.S.2d 222 (1947); Curry v. Journal Publishing Co., 41 N.M. 318, 68 P.2d 168 (1937); Cohen v. New York Times Co., 153 A.D. 242, 138 N.Y.S. 206 (1912). These cases suggest that publication of a notic......
-
Benavidez v. Labaratories, CIV 15-0922 JB/LF
...established as a federal enclave in 1954. See Tr. at 20:11-14 (Poore). Benavidez maintains, however, that in 1937 in Curry v. Journal Pub. Co., 1937-NMSC-023, 68 P.2d 168, overruled by Ramirez v. Armstrong, 1983-NMSC-104, 673 P.2d 822, the Supreme Court of New Mexico addressed the idea of e......
-
Benavidez v. Sandia Nat'l Labs.
...enclave in 1954. See Tr. at 20:11-14 (Poore). Benavidez maintains, however, that in 1937 in Curry v. Journal Pub. Co. , 1937–NMSC–023, 41 N.M. 318, 68 P.2d 168, overruled by Ramirez v. Armstrong , 1983–NMSC–104, 100 N.M. 538, 673 P.2d 822, the Supreme Court of New Mexico addressed the idea ......
-
Daniel v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
...Torts 552, comment c, illustration 2; MacKown v. Illinois Publ. & Print. Co., 289 Ill.App. 59, 6 N.E.2d 526 [1937]; Curry v. Journal Publ. Co., 41 N.M. 318, 68 P.2d 168 [1937]; Langworthy v. Pulitzer Publ. Co., 368 S.W.2d 385, 390 [Mo.1963] ("[n]o action for damages lies against a newspaper......