Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Hickman
| Decision Date | 28 February 1927 |
| Docket Number | 26124 |
| Citation | 146 Miss. 394,111 So. 588 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. v. HICKMAN. [*] |
On Suggestion of Error March 14, 1927.
1. APPEAL AND ERROR. Instruction authorizing actual damages for insult and humiliation held error, where verdict was for actual damages, though probably intended as punitive.
In passenger's action against railroad for damages for insult and humiliation at hands of conductor, erroneous instruction authorizing actual damages, together with refusal of instruction for punitive damages warranted by the record held to require reversal, where verdict was returned as actual damages, although probably intehded as punitive damages.
2 CARRIERS. Passenger held entitled to punitive damages for conductor's wrongful conduct in falsely accusing him of attempting to ride on wrong ticket.
Passenger who was falsely accused by conductor of attempting to ride on wrong ticket and of trying to beat the railroad company and of willfully lying about what kind of ticket he gave him, held entitled to punitive damages for conductor's willful and wrongful conduct.
APPEAL from circuit court of Alcorn county, HON. C. P. LONG, Judge.
Action by J. H. Hickman against the Illinois Central Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Judgment reversed, and case remanded. Sustained in part and overruled in part.
May, Sanders & McLaurin and R. V. Fletcher, for appellant.
I. The court erred in refusing the peremptory instruction requested by the defendant. The plaintiff was not entitled to recover actual damages because he suffered none; he was not entitled to recover punitive damages, as the trial court correctly ruled in the instruction for the defendant, and if he was not entitled to recover either actual or punitive damages, then, of course, the defendant was entitled to the peremptory instruction.
Punitive damages may not be recovered apart from physical injury except in cases of wilful wrong, malice, insult or oppression. Dorrah v. R. R. Co., 65 Miss. 14; Telephone Co. v. Rogers, 68 Miss. 748; G. & S. I. R. R. Co. v. Beard, 129 Miss. at 834.
The plaintiff was not entitled to recover punitive damages. R. R. Co. v. Gill, 66 Miss. 39; K. C. M. & B. R. R. Co. v. Fite, 67 Miss. 373; M. & O. R. R. Co. v. Farrier, 115 Miss. 96; N.W. & N. E. R. R. Co. v. Martin, 105 So. 64.
II. The instruction given plaintiff on actual damages is clearly erroneous. It instructs the court to award punitive damages under the guise of actual damages.
J. E. Berry and J. A. Cunningham, for appellee.
Of itself the conductor's conduct justified the court below in refusing the peremptory instruction and was a proper basis for punitive damages. I. C. R. C. Co. v. Reed, 46 So. at 146; Y. & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 50 So. 631 and authorities there cited. See, also, Godfrey v. Meridian Ry. & Light Co., 58 So. 534; Y. & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Martin, 29 So. 829; Jackson Light & Traction Co. v. Taylor, 72 So. 856.
Under the foregoing opinions taken in connection with the language of the conductor and the repeated insults and demeanor of oppression, the trial court certainly erred in instructing the jury that they could not give punitive damages:
The Illinois Central Railroad Company appeals from a judgment of seven hundred fifty dollars in favor of J. H. Hickman, recovered as damages for insult and humiliation suffered by him at the hands of the railroad conductor, while a passenger on one of its trains between Birmingham, Ala., and Belmont, Miss.
The railroad company urges reversal upon several grounds, but we think there is no merit in any of the contentions except one, and that is, that the court erred in granting the instruction for the plaintiff below which told the jury that:
"If they believe from a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's conductor, willfully, knowingly, used harsh language and applied to plaintiff abusive and insulting language such as to humiliate and embarrass plaintiff, then you should find for the plaintiff, and assess such actual damages as will in your judgment from the evidence reasonably compensate him for such humiliation and embarrassment sustained thereby as a result of such wrong."
The willful and insulting language used by the conductor toward the appellee would have justified an instruction for punitive damages, but there could be no actual damages in the sum of seven hundred fifty dollars for mere mental suffering as found in this case. Therefore this instruction was error, but it seems that the jury returned a verdict for seven hundred fifty dollars as actual damages, whereas the jury, no doubt, intended to find the amount as punitive damages. The court refused to grant an instruction for punitive damages, for the plaintiff, although the record disclosed a case warranting the infliction of punitive damages. These errors by the lower court must necessarily result in a reversal on this appeal.
The court should have granted an instruction for punitive damages and refused the instruction for actual damages; and, while we think that the jury must have intended to render a verdict for punitive damages under the guise of actual damages, as instructed, still we cannot be certain enough in this regard to justify an affirmance of the case.
Suppose that the jury would not have rendered a verdict for punitive damages, and, of course, the court cannot peremptorily charge the jury to return a verdict for...
To continue reading
Request your trial