Davis v. Elzey
| Decision Date | 16 June 1921 |
| Docket Number | 21827. |
| Citation | 126 Miss. 789,89 So. 666 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | DAVIS, Director General. v. ELZEY. |
Syllabus by the Court.
Under the Federal Control Act of March 21, 1918, § 10 (), punitive damages are not recoverable against the government or the Director General; and a judgment obtained by using an instruction authorizing punitive damages will be reversed, where the court cannot say with confidence that the jury would have returned such verdict if the punitive damage instruction had not been given.
On suggestion of error. Suggestion sustained, and case remanded for new trial as to damages alone; judgment being affirmed as to liability.
For former opinion, see 88 So. 630.
In the former opinion handed down by this court on June 6, 1921, 88 So. 630, we held that punitive damages were recoverable against the government operating the railroad through a director general, and that consequently it was not error to give a charge to the jury authorizing the infliction of punitive damages in the case before us.
On suggestion of error our attention has been called to the decision in the case of Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. and Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, v. Ault, 256 U. S.__, 41 S.Ct. 593, 65 L.Ed.__, decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 1, 1921, which decision was not before us when we reached our former conclusion. A careful consideration of this decision by the United States Supreme Court, which is the court of final authority on this question, convinces us that we were in error, and that punitive damages may not be recovered against the government or the Director General. See Missouri Pacific R. Co etc., v. Ault, 256 U. S.__, 41 S.Ct. 593, 65 L.Ed.__.
This construction by the United States Supreme Court in this opinion is practically conceded by the appellant, but the appellant insists that the giving of the instruction on punitive damages was harmless error, because the amount recovered was not more than fair compensation for the injury inflicted, and that under rule 11 of this court (72 So. vii) we should affirm the judgment.
While the amount recovered might be upheld in the absence of an instruction for punitive damages, we cannot say with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dixie Greyshound Lines, Inc. v. Matthews
...having knowledge of the nature and character of the injuries should be permitted to testify. Davis v. Elzey, 126 Miss. 789, 88 So. 630, 89 So. 666; Hunter v. Hunter, 127 683, 90 So. 440; Watkins v. Watkins, 142 Miss. 210, 106 So. 753; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. McSwain, 149 Miss. 455, 11......
-
Keeton v. State
...employed in calling in assistants will be treated as the act of the patient in such case." In Davis v. Elzey, 126 Miss. 789, 88 So. 630, 89 So. 666, it was held that under the above section of the Code, the relation of physician and patient exists, the testimony of the physician is not admi......
-
Columbus & Greenville R. Co. v. Lee
...674; Ry. v. Daniell, 108 Miss. 358, 66 So. 730; R. R. v. Gray, 118 Miss. 612, 79 So. 812; Hines v. McCullers, 121 Miss. 789, 88 So. 630, 89 So. 666; Davis v. Temple, 129 Miss. 6, 91 So. 138 Miss. 68." If the Fondren case is to be overruled, then this case must be overruled. In the Grantham ......
-
Whittington v. H. T. Cottam Co.
... ... of opiates and he remembered nothing about it, and was stupid ... from the use of drugs, was void and fraudulently obtained ... Davis ... v. Elzey, 126 Miss. 789; Daner v. G. & S. I. R. R ... Co., 106 Miss. 496; Huff v. Bear Creek Mill ... Co., 116 Miss. 509; Malkmus v. St ... ...