Bucknam v. Great N. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 23 May 1899
• Citation: 76 Minn. 373,79 N.W. 98
• Parties: BUCKNAM v. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

76 Minn. 373

79 N.W. 98

BUCKNAM

v.GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 23, 1899.

Appeal from district court, Polk county; William Watts, Judge.

Action by Regina Bucknam against the Great Northern Railway Company. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Plaintiff went with her husband into the ladies' waiting room of defendant's railroad depot, waiting there for the arrival of her sister, coming on defendant's train, when an employé of defendant, in charge of said waiting room, and authorized to keep it quiet and orderly, supposing that plaintiff's husband, then with her, was not in fact her husband, ordered him to leave said room, and used harsh, violent, and abusive language towards him, and made insulting and threatening demands of him; and thereupon plaintiff suffered a nervous shock, and became faint and sick, and so remained for several days. The language so used by defendant's employé was not addressed to plaintiff, nor was there any physical injury inflicted upon plaintiff's husband or herself, and at no time was she in peril or danger of personal injury by reason of the threats or facts of defendant's employé. Held, that for the language so used an action would not lie in behalf of the plaintiff as for a private wrong. H. Steenerson and W. E. Rowe, for appellant.

Wm. R. Begg and A. C. Wilkinson, for respondent.

BUCK, J.

This action comes to this court upon an appeal from an order sustaining defendant's demurrer to the complaint. The plaintiff alleges in her complaint: That at Crookston, on the evening of the 10th day of October, 1898, she, with her husband and their little child, went to the defendant's railroad station to meet the plaintiff's sister, whose arrival she then expected over one of the defendant's roads. At this station the plaintiff and her husband entered one of the defendant's waiting rooms, and while there quietly seated, and properly behaving themselves, the defendant, by and through its agents and servants in charge of said station and waiting rooms, supposing that plaintiff's husband was not in fact her husband, and within the line and scope of their powers and duties, wrongfully and unlawfully charged plaintiff's husband with not being the husband of this plaintiff, and then and there ordered plaintiff's said husband to leave this plaintiff, and not to occupy the same room of said depot building with this plaintiff, and then used harsh, violent, and abusive language, and made threatening and insulting demands of and towards plaintiff's husband, in her presence, in demanding him to leave this plaintiff and said room, whereby she suffered a nervous shock, and became faint, sick, and helpless, which said illness continued for a period of one week, during which time the plaintiff's nervous system was violently agitated and deranged, whereby she suffered great pain and sickness. She further alleges in her complaint that she and her husband were rightfully in said depot building, and were properly conducting themselves, and that by reason of said wrongful acts of defendant she was damaged in the sum of $500.

Of course, the demurrer admits the material facts alleged in the complaint; but the question is, do all the facts stated constitute a cause of action? It is not claimed that the action is one in slander, and we need not discuss that view of the case. Nor does plaintiff allege the acts to have been an assault and battery. She merely alleges that the acts were wrongful and unlawful. It was not an attempt to commit assault and battery either upon her or her husband; for there was not the slightest effort to apply the least actual force to either, directly or indirectly. Nor does it appear that the servant was in close proximity to either husband or wife when he used the language alleged. And threats to commit an injury are not...