Bowers v. Colonial Stages Interstate Transit, Inc.

• Decision Date: 07 December 1931
• Citation: 43 S.W.2d 497,163 Tenn. 502
• Parties: BOWERS v. COLONIAL STAGES INTERSTATE TRANSIT, Inc.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

43 S.W.2d 497

163 Tenn. 502

BOWERS v. COLONIAL STAGES INTERSTATE TRANSIT, Inc.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

December 7, 1931

Error to Circuit Court, Hamilton County; Oscar Yarnell, Judge.

Action by Macie Bowers against the Colonial Stages Interstate Transit, Incorporated. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

John H Early, of Chattanooga, for plaintiff in error.

Lynch Bachman, Phillips & Lynch, of Chattanooga, for defendant in error.

CHAMBLISS J.

Plaintiff's declaration alleges that, being in Chattanooga and advised of the serious illness of her mother, at a point near Johnson City, she procured her husband to make inquiry as to the quickest means of transportation from Chattanooga to Johnson City; that he approached an agent of the defendant bus line at Chattanooga and advised him of the situation and was told by the agent that defendant's bus would leave Chattanooga for Johnson City at 1:30 p. m., arriving there at 9:30 p. m that she presented herself at the local station at the hour named and was then informed that defendant did not operate a bus line to Johnson City; that she was much delayed, as the result of this misinformation, in reaching her mother's bedside and that meanwhile her mother had lost consciousness and later died without recognizing plaintiff; that before lapsing into unconsciousness her mother repeatedly called for her. She sued to recover damages for mental anguish. A demurrer to the declaration on several grounds was sustained and plaintiff appeals.

It not being alleged that defendant operates a line from Chattanooga to Johnson City, it is insisted that (1) the defendant owed no duty to plaintiff to give the information, and that (2) in giving the alleged misinformation the agent acted beyond the scope of his authority. By other grounds of the demurrer the right to recover for mental anguish on the facts alleged is denied, it being insisted that while Tennessee has followed the minority rule in allowing recoveries for mental anguish, such recoveries have been confined to a limited class of cases only, and reliance is had on the expressed disinclination of this court to extend the right of recovery further. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Potts, 120 Tenn. 37, 45, 113 S.W. 789, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 479, 127 Am. St. Rep. 991.

Recoveries in this state for mental anguish purely, unaccompanied or supported by physical or property injuries, appear to have been confined to telegraph and telephone cases, beginning with the leading case of Wadsworth v. Telegraph Co., 86 Tenn. 695, 8 S.W. 574, 6 Am. St. Rep. 864, and grouped in the opinion of Mr. Justice Neal in Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Potts, supra; and cases growing out of unwarranted or improper handling of dead bodies, of which Hill v Travelers' Ins. Co., 154 Tenn. 295, 294 S.W. 1097, 52 A. L. R. 1442; Taylor v. Bearden, 6 Tenn. Civ. App. 33, and Dutto v. Cemetery, 8 Tenn. Civ. App. 120, are illustrations. Grounds for the allowance of recoveries in the telegraph cases are set forth in the opinion in the Wadsworth Case. Much emphasis was put in this case upon the violation of a duty imposed by statute, actionable per se, as affording a basis for recovery, supporting in turn a recovery for incidental or consequent mental suffering. Perhaps the most generally recognized basis for the allowance of damages for mental anguish in these exceptional cases is the theory that in telegraph and dead body cases it may fairly be said that mental feelings are within the contemplation of ...