Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Pearson

• Decision Date: 11 October 1901
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. LELAND L. PEARSON

31 So. 435

80 Miss. 26

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. LELAND L. PEARSON

Supreme Court of Mississippi

October 11, 1901

FROM the circuit court of, second district, Panola county. HON PERRIN H. LOWREY, Judge.

Pearson appellee, was plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company was defendant there.

The facts, as shown by plaintiff's testimony, are as follows On April 17, 1900, plaintiff, then residing at Batesville Miss. received a telegram in the evening stating that his sister was in a dying condition at San Antonio, Tex Plaintiff immediately wired in reply that he would leave on the first train for San Antonio, and at the same time arranged with the defendant's ticket agent at Batesville to procure for him a ticket to San Antonio, by having the agent wire to defendant's agent at Memphis for the ticket. The fast train to New Orleans did not stop at Batesville, and plaintiff took another train for Grenada, intending to board the fast train there. His ticket was sent by the agent at Memphis, and delivered to plaintiff at the train when he started for Grenada. When he reached Grenada he was there informed by an agent of defendant that the fast train had been sent by way of the Yazoo & Mississippi Valley road to New Orleans on account of the track being washed out near New Orleans, but that the fast train south the next morning would go through to New Orleans. Plaintiff waited over night at Grenada to catch this train, which would put him in San Antonio quicker than any other route. But the next morning the agent of defendant informed him that the morning train south would not go down, and suggested that plaintiff should take the accommodation, and go south to Canton, where he would find the train that had passed on the previous morning, and which would go from there to New Orleans. Plaintiff took this advice, and went to Canton. Plaintiff took the train at Canton and started south, and took a sleeper, and on waking next morning found that the train had stopped at McComb City. About 12 o'clock that day a train was made up there going to the north, and plaintiff got his baggage, and was in the act of boarding that train when he was told by the conductor that he had better remain at McComb City, as the train upon which he came would reach New Orleans before the train going north would reach Jackson, Miss. Acting upon this information, he remained at McComb twenty-four hours, when he took a northbound train for Memphis, and reached San Antonio Saturday night instead of the preceding Wednesday, as he would have done had he not been delayed. The ticket agent at Memphis knew of the washout when the ticket was sold to plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered very much mentally on account of his separation from his sister; she was an only sister, and he was very much attached to her. The Jury were instructed by the court for plaintiff that if they believed from the evidence that the sale of the ticket was a willful wrong, they might assess defendant with punitive damages. From a verdict and judgment for $ 400 for plaintiff, defendant appealed to the supreme court.

Reversed and remanded.

Mayes & Harris and J. M. Dickinson, for appellant.

The verdict in this case is so much in excess of any actual damage proven, that it is manifest that the jury awarded punitive damages under the instruction of the court submitting that question to them.

Plaintiff is only entitled to actual, if to any, damages. He is not entitled to recover on account of mental suffering, because this is not a case for unitive damages. In the cases of Western Union Telegraph Company v. Rogers, 68 Miss. 748, and Dorrah v. Railroad Company, 65 Miss. 14, this court has distinctly held that mental suffering is never an element of damage, except in those cases where it is the result of physical injury, or where punitive damages can be recovered.

In the recent case of Marlett v. Vicksburg Railroad Company, 78 Miss. 873, this court, through Judge Terral has clearly announced the rule as to punitive damages, and holds that they can only be awarded in civil actions where there is insult, malice, fraud, or willful wrong, and that willful wrong means knowingly violating a duty to the plaintiff; knowingly doing a wrong to the plaintiff, intentionally. In other words, it involves the element of a will to do injury to the...