Eastman, Gardiner & Co. v. Permenter
| Decision Date | 08 July 1916 |
| Docket Number | 18204 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | EASTMAN GARDINER CO. v. PERMENTER |
APPEAL from the circuit court of Smith county, HON. W. H. HUGHES Judge.
Suit by J. D. Permenter against Eastman Gardiner & Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Case reversed and dismissed.
Street & Street and T. J. Wills, for appellant.
E. L Dent, for appellee.
J. D Permenter, the appellee in this case, filed suit in the circuit court of Smith county against the appellant, Eastman Gardiner & Co. The declaration alleged that the plaintiff in the court below, J. D. Permenter, had been employed by Eastman, Gardiner & Co., the defendant, as a laborer engaged about the defendant's lumber business, and that each of the employees, including the plaintiff, were required to pay and did pay from one dollar to one dollar and fifty cents each month out of their salary to the defendant company, and in consideration of this payment the defendant contracted with the plaintiff to furnish him with medical and surgical treatment and necessary medicine in the event he or any member of his family should become sick or injured during their employment by the defendant. Plaintiff charges that on or about the 1st day of August, 1913, while he was in the employment of said defendant, and while the above contract was in force, a member of his family, a little child about six years old, became sick and suffered excruciating pain both in mind and body, and the defendant on that date was immediately notified of the condition of plaintiff's child, and that in violation of its contract, and in violation of "even the common obligations of humanity," failed and refused to comply with its contract to furnish him with a physician and medicine, and that by reason of the willful, gross, and wanton negligence of the defendant and the violation of its contract, the plaintiff's sick child grew worse for want of medical treatment, and that this caused the said sick child to be without medicine and medical treatment for several days, when it was in need of same. The declaration further charges that if the defendant had furnished a physician and medicine as it had contracted to do, the sick child in all probability would have recovered. And plaintiff charged that by reason of the existing contract of the plaintiff with the defendant to furnish plaintiff and plaintiff's family with a physician, medicine, and medical treatment, plaintiff was unable to procure the services of any other physician to attend the sick and suffering child, and charged that he was entitled to the services and companionship of his child in normal, healthy condition, and but for the willful breach of the contract by the defendant as set out in the declaration he would in all probability have had the services and companionship of his said child in a normal and healthy condition. Plaintiff alleged in his declaration, also, that on account of the breach of contract complained of he had to wait on his child and spend large sums of money for medicine and medical treatment, and that the defendant knew of the child's condition and its urgent need of medicine and medical treatment, but that nevertheless, in violation of its contract, it had failed and refused to furnish plaintiff's family with either medical treatment or physician as above stated, and that, by reason of its gross and willful negligence in this behalf, plaintiff had been subjected to much inconvenience and loss of time and had suffered great humiliation and had been deprived of the services of his child in a normal and healthy condition, and that the child was irretrievably crippled and deformed, all on account of the defendant's breach of contract as aforesaid; and plaintiff averred that by reason of the willful neglect and refusal of the defendant to furnish a physician, medicine, and medical treatment as stated in his declaration, the plaintiff had been caused much unnecessary annoyance, humiliation, sorrow, and suffering in seeing his child in such a condition, and alleged the loss of services and companionship of his child and loss of time and expense waiting on his said child,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sessions v. Thomas D. Dee Memorial Hospital Ass'n
... ... 230, 110 N.W. 951, 10 L. R. A., N. S., ... 74, 11 Ann. Cas. 150; Mississippi: Eastman Gardiner ... Co. v. Permenter , 111 Miss. 813, 72 So. 234; ... Missouri: Eads v. Y. W. C. A ... ...
-
Rhodes v. Millsaps College
...126 So. 465. It is our contention that this case does not extend one whit the doctrine as already laid down in the James case and in the Eastman Gardner There can be no reasoning adopted from all the decisions which can in any method save this defendant from liability in this case. If this ......
-
Gulf & S. I. R. Co. v. Sullivan
... ... Davis ... v. Green, 260 U.S. 349, 43 S.Ct. 123; Eastman, Gardiner & ... Co. v. Permenter, 111 Miss. 813, 72 So. 234; Owen v ... G. & S. I. R. R. Co., 79 ... ...
-
Mississippi Baptist Hospital v. Moore
... ... James ... v. Y. & M. V. Railroad Co., 153 Miss. 770, 121 So. 819; ... Eastman Gardener Company v. Permenter, 111 Miss ... 813, 72 So. 234; Glavin v. R. I. Hospital, 12 R. I ... line up under the trust fund doctrine ... Eastman ... Gardiner Lumber Co. v. Permenter, 72 So. 234, 111 ... Miss. 813 ... It is a ... familiar rule ... ...