Bethea v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
| Citation | 81 S.E. 675,97 S.C. 385 |
| Decision Date | 06 May 1914 |
| Docket Number | 8843. |
| Parties | BETHEA v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Marlboro County; Frank B Gary, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Action by Lawrence Bethea against the Western Union Telegraph Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Appeal dismissed.
Stevenson Stevenson & Prince, of Bennettsville, for appellant.
J. K Owens, of Bennettsville, for respondent.
On the 19th of May, 1912, G. F. Bethea, a brother of Lawrence Bethea, delivered to the defendant the following telegram addressed to the plaintiff at Dillon, S. C.: "Come at once if you want to see brother living."
The jury rendered the following verdict: "We find for the plaintiff two hundred and fifty dollars punitive damages."
The defendant appealed upon the following exception: "The court erred in refusing to set aside the verdict and order a new trial, when, from the finding taken in connection with the charge of the judge, it appeared that there had been no actual damages inflicted, and hence punishment was visited on the defendant for a wrong which had not been committed, and which the jury by its findings negatived."
His honor, the presiding judge, charged the jury as follows in regard to the form of their verdict:
"The form of your verdict will be either, 'We find for the plaintiff' so many dollars actual damages, and that includes, of course, mental anguish, intense mental suffering, and so many dollars punitive damages, if you also find punitive damages, or, 'we find for the defendant.' In other words, gentlemen, if you find both actual and punitive damages, I want you to keep them separated. Now if, in your deliberations, you have any confusion about the form of the verdict, or the law, or anything else, don't hesitate to let it be known. If I can be of any service to you, I will be glad to do so. Is there anything further for the plaintiff?
Mr. Owens: It occurs to me, possibly, that the complaint stands as one solid demand; that there would be no use in the jury specifying as to damages; that the jury could find for the plaintiff without specifying what they find as actual damages, and what they find as punitive damages.
The Court: They might do it; but I am not going to permit them to do it. If you find that, as the result of the negligence and wanton conduct of the defendant, he has suffered mental anguish, you have a right to award actual damages and also punitive damages, and I want you to keep them separate. You could find a bulk sum; but I don't want them kept that way. If you find for the defendant, you will simply say, 'We find for the defendant.' "
In the case of Doster v. Telegraph Co., 77 S.C. 56, 57 S.E 671, the court had under consideration the question whether a verdict for punitive damages only could be sustained. Mr. Justice Woods, who delivered the opinion of the court, thought that the verdict should be set aside; but the other members of the court thought otherwise, and in stating their views he used the following language: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial