Howell v. Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry. Co
| Decision Date | 02 December 1918 |
| Docket Number | 21670 |
| Citation | 144 La. 427,80 So. 613 |
| Parties | HOWELL et al. v. VICKSBURG, S. & P. RY. CO |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied January 6, 1919
(Syllabus by the Court.)
In a suit for damages against a railroad company, where it is shown that the accident complained of was unavoidable, and that the company is without fault in the premises, the claim for damages will be denied.
Stubbs Theus, Grisham & Thompson, of Monroe, for appellant.
R. L. Williams, of Arcadia, for appellees.
O'NIELL and LECHE, JJ., concur in the decree.
Mrs. Emma Howell, and her divorced husband, George S. Long, sue defendant jointly for $ 46,000, for injury, suffering, and death of their minor daughter, Mary Long, aged eight years, who was run over by defendant's train, through the alleged fault and negligence of defendant's employes.
Defendant answered, admitting that Mary Long was struck by defendant's engine, and that she received a flesh wound on one foot, but it denied that it was in any manner guilty of neglect or fault, and it alleged that the accident was unavoidable. It denied that death resulted from the accident.
In an amended answer, defendant pleaded a compromise between Mrs. Howell and it, by which it paid her $ 250 in full settlement of her interest in the claim. This settlement was proved on the trial. Nevertheless, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Mrs. Howell and George S. Long, for $ 1,000, and judgment was rendered accordingly, with interest. Long did not compromise his claim.
Defendant has appealed, and plaintiffs ask that the judgment be amended by increasing it to the amount claimed, including that portion for punitory damages.
Punitory damages are not allowed in a civil suit for damages. Vincent v. Morgan's La. & Texas R. R. & S. S. Co., 140 La. 1027, 74 So. 541; Dunson v. Baker, No. 21628 on the docket, 80 So. 238, this day decided.
Mary Long was a bright child, eight years of age, who, while on her way to school with three other girls, trespassed upon the track of the defendant company, near the regular stopping place of the train in the town of Simmsport.
Mary Swanner, one of the four girls, and she was the only one called by plaintiffs as a witness, testified that they, the girls, saw the train coming and heard the locomotive blow; that they got off the track in safety, excepting Mary Long, whose foot became caught in a frog. The little witness gave a graphic description of the scene, and told of courage and great presence of mind on the part of all of them. In answer to questions, she said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibbons v. N. O. Terminal Co.
... ... 369, 63 ... Callery ... vs. Morgan's Louisiana and Texas R and S. S ... Company, 139 La. 763, 72 So. 222 ... Howell ... vs. Vicksburg S. and P. Ry. Company, 144 La. 427, 80 So ... Lampkin ... vs. McCormick, 105 La. 418, 29 So. 952 ... Ross ... ...
-
Moulin v. Monteleone
...Co. v. Union Naval Stores Co., 142 La. 502, 77 So. 131; Dunson v. Baker, 144 La. 167, 80 So. 238; Howell v. Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry. Co., 144 La. 427, 80 So. 613; Hanna v. Otis, 151 La. 851, 92 So. 360; Selser v. Revol, 152 La. 447, 454, 93 So. 675; Janssen Catering Co. v. Abadie, 157 La. 357......
- A. Polk & Son v. New Orleans & N.E. R. Co.
-
Leopold v. Bradford-Hutchinson Lumber Co., Inc.
... ... 308, 76 ... So. 723; Lee Lumber Co. v. Union Naval Stores Co., ... 142 La. 502, 77 So. 131; Dunson v. Baker, 144 La ... 167, 80 So. 238; Howell v. Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry ... Co., 144 La. 427, 428, 80 So. 613; Hanna v ... Otis, 151 La. 851, 92 So. 360; Selser v. Revol, ... 152 La. 454, 93 ... ...