Hart v. Charlotte, C. & A.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 20 October 1890
• Citation: 12 S.E. 9,33 S.C. 427
• Parties: HART v. CHARLOTTE, C. & A. R. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

12 S.E. 9

33 S.C. 427

HART v. CHARLOTTE, C. & A. R. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

October 20, 1890

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Edgefield county.

Action by James R. Hart against the Charlotte, Columbia & Augusta Railroad Company. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Following are the exceptions set out in the "case on appeal" referred to in the opinion "(1) For that his honor erred in admitting the testimony of the plaintiff in regard to expenses incurred in trip to the electric wells in Georgia, and in use of those wells when it had not been shown that these expenditures were necessary to restore plaintiff's health, or that he was advised to make the same. (2) For that his honor erred in admitting the testimony of plaintiff in regard to trip to Glenn Springs, when there was no evidence that this trip was in the line of any medical treatment. (3) For that his honor erred in allowing plaintiff to state in his opinion the value of his services on his farm. (4) For that his honor erred in charging the jury: 'If you find that the injuries were caused by the maliciousness, oppressiveness, or recklessness of the servants of defendant, or its lessees, then you may also add such sum by way of exemplary damages as you may think proper, to teach defendant to behave better in future not only for the protection of plaintiff, but of the public also.' (5) For that his honor erred in charging that the plaintiff, if he was entitled to any damages, was entitled to compensation for the pain and bodily suffering which he had undergone. (6) For that his honor erred in refusing to charge that the damages mentioned in section 1539 of the General Statutes are pecuniary, such as the person injured has sustained in money, and do not include exemplary damages, or such as are allowed for mental or physical pain and anguish. (7) For that his honor erred in charging that defendant, the lessor company, was liable in exemplary damages for the maliciousness, oppressiveness, or recklessness of the Richmond & Danville Railroad Company, the lessee company. (8) For that his honor erred in charging that the defendant was liable for any damages under section 1539 of the General Statutes, when he should have charged that the lessee company in the operation of said road was responsible therefor. (9) Because his honor in his whole charge confined the attention of the jury to whether the plaintiff had shown negligence on the part of the defendant, by not complying with the statute and gross negligence on the part of the plaintiff; and excluded the question of contributory negligence or want of ordinary care on the part of the plaintiff, in case the jury should find that the statute had been complied with." Following is folio 114 of the "case on appeal," referred to in the opinion, and also folio 115: "114. Question. What was the value of your services a day on your farm? Answer. Worth a good deal. Mr. Abney. I object to that. The witness may give data from which the jury may estimate the value of his services about the farm for the time which he alleges he was unable to perform such service; but it seems to me incompetent for this witness to value his services without any fact. The Court. It is matter of experience with the witness what the value of his services were to him. State what the value is 115. (Exception noted.) Q. What was the value of your services on or about your farm? A. Very valuable right about then, in the midst of a crop. I could not have hired one to do the work. It cost me 75 cts. a day, but I was worth more than that myself. Q. You were worth more to your farm than an ordinary hand? A. Yes, sir. I controlled it; the others worked under me. I had to hire some one regularly in my place to finish that crop."

John C. Haskell, for appellant.

Sheppard Bros., for respondent.

SIMPSON C.J.

The action below was brought by the plaintiff respondent to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by him through the negligence of the Richmond & Danville Railroad Company, a lessee of defendant company. The negligence is alleged in the complaint to have consisted of--"(1) In failing to give the required signal by ringing a bell, or sounding the steam-whistle, as the locomotive and cars approached the crossing of a public high way along which the plaintiff was traveling, by reason whereof the plaintiff was unaware of the approach of said cars; and also that defendant had failed or omitted to remove an embankment standing along the line of said road, so as to admit to persons traveling along said public highway, from the town of Johnston southward, a view of said locomotive and cars running towards said town of Johnston from the southern terminus of said railroad," by reason of which it is alleged that while plaintiff was traveling in a buggy drawn by one horse, said horse was struck by defendant's locomotive and instantly killed, his...