Davis v. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co.

• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WHITFIELD, C. J.
• Citation: Davis v. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co., 49 So. 179, 95 Miss. 540 (Miss. 1909)
• Decision Date: 10 May 1909
• Parties: WHITE D. DAVIS v. YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY

49 So. 179

95 Miss. 540

WHITE D. DAVIS v. YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 10, 1909

March 1909

FROM the circuit court of Tunica county, HON. SAMUEL C. COOK Judge.

Davis appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company, appellee, was defendant there. From a judgment for $ 25 in plaintiff's favor he appealed to the supreme court contending that his recovery was too small.

Appellant took passage on a passenger train of the appellee, and requested to be put off at a flag station called Etters. The conductor told him that they were going for the first time that evening over a new route a short distance from the old line, but that there were flag stations on the new route with corresponding names, and that he would put him off at the new station of Etters, only a short distance across country to the old station. Appellant then explained that his buggy would meet him at the old station of Etters, but was told by the conductor that the distance was short, and that he could walk over from the new station to the old one and intercept the buggy. It was after dark, and the station "Etters," was called, and the conductor told appellant that they had reached Etters, and appellant then got off, but before getting off, told the conductor that he was not familiar with the ground, and wanted to be certain that they were at his station. The conductor assured him that they were there, although the conductor himself had never been over the new route. After appellant had disembarked and the train had left, he discovered that he was not at Etters, but was at Ensley. There were no houses near the station Ensley, and after appellant had wandered about trying to find the new station, Etters (where his buggy had proceeded to meet him, but had returned after the train passed without stopping), he became lost, but finally found the road, and walked seven miles to his home in the dark. He was much disturbed and frightened, because alone and unarmed, at night, in a strange country, where lawlessness was known to exist. On the trial the court below declined to permit the jury to consider punitive damages or mental suffering as an element of damages, there being no testimony to show malice or intentional misconduct on the part of the conductor or the defendant.

Reversed and remanded.

J. T. Lowe, for appellant.

The court below erred in peremptorily instructing that the jury could not award punitive damages. The conduct of the appellee, whether we take the version given by the appellant or conductor Ross, was wanton and wilful and it was capricious and the grossest of negligence and this court has many times held that for such conduct exemplary damages could be properly awarded. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. White, 82 Miss. 120, 33 So. 970; Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Mitchell, 83 Miss. 179, 35 So. 339; Illinois, etc., R. Co. v. Harper, 83 Miss. 560, 35 So. 764; Whitfield v. Meridian, 66 Miss. 576, 6 So. 244.

Mayes & Longstreet for appellee.

It is for the court to determine whether there is any evidence to support an award of punitive damages, and where, in the judgment of ...