Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Trott

• Decision Date: 19 February 1894
• Docket Number: (No. 72.)
• Citation: 25 S.W. 419
• Parties: GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. TROTT.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

25 S.W. 419

GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. TROTT.

(No. 72.)

Supreme Court of Texas.

February 19, 1894.

Certified questions from court of civil appeals of third supreme judicial district.

Action by G. A. Trott against the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company. Questions certified by the court of civil appeals, and answered in the negative.

J. W. Terry, for appellant. E. F. English and E. L. Antony, for appellee.

GAINES, J.

The court of civil appeals for the third supreme judicial district certify the following questions for our determination:

"In the above styled and numbered cause now pending in our court, the appellee claimed and recovered damages in the county court for alleged negligence on part of appellant company, whereby appellee's team of horses, hitched to a wagon in which he was traveling, were frightened, and caused to break his wagon, and put him in fear and fright as to his own personal safety, and caused him great mental suffering, vexation, and anxiety of mind. There was evidence tending to support all of these allegations. There was no averment or proof of any physical injury to appellee. The court instructed the jury that if they found for appellee, and found that, as the result of the negligence complained of, he was frightened, put in fear for his personal safety, and caused mental pain or anxiety, they should allow him fair and reasonable compensation therefor. The evidence did not present any issue as to exemplary damages, and the jury were so instructed. With this explanation, this court certified to the supreme court for decision the following questions: (1) In an action for damages, based upon tortious and negligent conduct of a defendant, where the wrongful act causes damages to plaintiff's property, but no physical injury to plaintiff, is mental suffering an element of actual damages? (2) Can actual damages be recovered for mental suffering, where there is no physical injury, no injury to property, nor other element of actual damages?" 25 S. W. 431.

We are of opinion that these questions should be answered in the negative. So far as we have been able to discover, all the cases involving the question of the right to recover for fright alone are in accordance with that holding. In Railway Com'rs v. Coultas, 13 App. Cas. 222, the gatekeeper at a crossing negligently permitted the plaintiff's carriage to cross the railroad track just as a train was approaching. The approach of the train was discovered by the driver of the carriage, and, by an effort, the passage was effected barely in time to prevent a collision. The peril was imminent, and the plaintiff, a married woman, was greatly frightened. The judicial committee of the privy council, reversing the judgment of the supreme court of Victoria, held that there could be no recovery. They say, in their opinion: "According to the evidence of the female plaintiff, her fright was caused by seeing the train approaching, and thinking they were going to be killed. Damages arising from mere sudden terror, unaccompanied by any actual physical injury, but occasioning a nervous mental shock, cannot, under such circumstances, their lordships think, be considered a consequence which, in the ordinary course of things, would flow from the negligence of the gatekeeper. If it were held that they can, it appears to their lordships that it would be extending the liability for negligence much beyond what that liability has hitherto been held to be. Not only in such a case as the present, but in every case where an accident caused by negligence had given a person a serious nervous shock, there might be a...