Ford v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co
| Decision Date | 28 September 1910 |
| Docket Number | (No. 2,558.) |
| Citation | 8 Ga.App. 295,68 S.E. 1072 |
| Parties | FORD v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
The allegations of the petition as amended were sufficient to show a cause of action, and the court erred in dismissing it on demurrer.
[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. § 1561; Dec. Dig. § 408.*]
(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
Carriers of passengers are liable for baggage as common carriers, except when destroyed by the act of God or the public enemy.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers. Cent. Dig. §§ 1519-1528; Dec. Dig. § 397 1/2.*}
Where a carrier unreasonably delays a trunk, and the passenger is thereby deprived of his wearing apparel, or necessary property for his use. contained in the trunk, the measure of damages is the value of the use of the wearing apparel or other property so delayed, during the delay in delivering it to him.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers. Dec. Dig. § 408.*]
In an action by a passenger against a carrier for unreasonable delay in delivering his baggage, in the absence of proof of special damages from being deprived of the use thereof, plaintiff may recover nominal general damages.
[ Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Dec. Dig. § 408.*] Error from City Court of Camilla; H. C. Dasher, Jr., Judge.
Action by Lizzie Ford against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Judgment of dismissal, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
Cox & Peacock and Davis & Merry, for plaintiff in error.
Spence & Bennet and Pope & Bennet, for defendant in error.
HILL, C. J. Lizzie Ford brought suit against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company to recover damages for delay in delivering to her a trunk containing the wearing apparel of herself and two of her Infant children. She alleged that she was a passenger on the line of the defendant company and had checked her trunk to the point of her destination, and that a reasonable time for the delivery to her of her trunk would have been 1 day, but it was unreasonably delayed for 11 days. Her petition as amended alleged that the trunk contained all the wearing apparel of herself and two minor children who were with her, and that by reason of the negligence of the defendant company in not safely transporting the trunk to its destination and delivering it to her upon demand she was tortiously deprived of the use of the clothing and wearing apparel of herself and of her children for a period of about 11 days, and that she was unable to buy additional clothing and extra wearing apparel as a substitute for that contained in her trunk, greatly to her inconvenience, injury, and damage. In her original petition she alleged that, because of the deprivation of the wearing apparel, she and her children were forced to go without a change" of clothing for 0 days, and during this time the clothing which she and her children wore became so soiled and filthy as to be indecent, and, being so far from home and among strangers, it caused her "great physical uncomforture and mental anguish and pain." She laid her damages in the sum of $500. The court sustained a general demurrer and dismissed her petition, and this judgment is the error assigned.
It is well settled in this state that carriers of passengers are liable for baggage as common carriers; that is, they are liable for baggage at all events, except when destroyed by the act of God or the public enemy. Dibble v. Brown, 12 Ga. 224, 50 Am. Dec. 460; 3 Hutcheson on Carriers, § 1241. It is insisted by learned counsel for the railroad company that plaintiff cannot recover damages resulting because of "physical uncomforture and mental anguish and pain" 3ue to the wearing of soiled clothes by herself and children. It is conceded...
To continue reading
Request your trial