Hydrick v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 May 1915 |
| Docket Number | (No. 376.) |
| Citation | 177 S.W. 5 |
| Parties | HYDRICK v. ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cross County; W. J. Driver, Judge.
Action by I. P. Hydrick against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
M. B. Norfleet and J. M. Prewett, both of Forrest City, for appellant. Troy Pace, of Little Rock, and Gordon Frierson, of Jonesboro, for appellee.
On the 31st day of October, 1914, I. P. Hydrick instituted this action against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him while alighting from one of defendant's passenger trains in consequence of the alleged negligence of the defendant.
The defendant interposed the plea of res judicata upon the following facts: On the 17th day of May, 1912, Hydrick was a passenger on one of defendant's passenger trains from Newport to Swifton. After the train stopped at Swifton it was suddenly jerked forward with great violence, and thereby caused Hydrick to be injured while he was alighting from the train. He instituted an action against the railway company to recover damages for the injury sustained. In 1911 he was convicted of murder in the second degree, and was sentenced to serve 11 years in the state penitentiary. The judgment and sentence of conviction were in effect at the time he instituted said action and at the time of the trial. Before the case was submitted to the jury he dismissed his cause of action as to the loss of time and diminished earning capacity, and the only elements of damage submitted to the jury were those of pain and suffering, medical attention, disfigurement, and humiliation arising from said disfigurement. The jury found for the plaintiff, and assessed his damages at $7,749. The defendant railway company appealed to the Supreme Court, and the judgment was affirmed. See St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Hydrick, 109 Ark. 231, 160 S. W. 851. Subsequently Hydrick was pardoned by the Governor, and thereafter instituted this action to recover damages for the same injury; his contention being that because he was pardoned by the Governor he is now entitled to recover for his loss of time and diminished earning capacity. The circuit court sustained the plea of res adjudicata, and the plaintiff has appealed.
The judgment of the circuit court was right. The cause of action and the damages recovered therefor are an entirety. The party injured must demand all the damages which he has suffered or ever will suffer from the injury, grievance, or cause of action upon which his action is founded. He cannot split a cause of action and bring successive suits for parts because he may not be able at first to prove all the items of the demand, or because all the damages have not been suffered. If he attempt to do so, a recovery in the first suit, though for less than his whole demand, will be a bar to the second action. See 1 Sutherland on Damages (3d Ed.) § 106. In volume 4, § 1251, the same author says:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial