Jones v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
| Decision Date | 12 September 1917 |
| Docket Number | 9505. |
| Citation | 94 S.E. 490,108 S.C. 217 |
| Parties | JONES v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Marion County; Geo. E Prince, Judge.
Action by J. Oliver Jones against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Henry E. Davis, of Florence, and Mullins & Hughes, of Marion, for appellant.
Harrelson & Harrelson, of Mullins, and A. F. Woods, of Marion, for respondent.
Plaintiff recovered judgment against defendant for $500 damages on the following facts: Plaintiff had a package of freight at defendant's depot, and went there to get it. The station agent told him to go to Jeff Hunter, a negro porter in the freight depot, who would deliver it to him. On going into the depot, where Hunter was, plaintiff presented the freight bill to him and asked him for the package. Hunter was seated on a box writing a postal card to his wife, and, when asked for the package, replied "All right, in a minute," and went on writing. Plaintiff waited some time--long enough, he thought, for Hunter to finish his writing--and called him again, and told him that he was in a hurry and wanted his package. Hunter again replied, "All right, in a minute." After waiting a minute or so, plaintiff said to him: Hunter jumped up and started toward plaintiff, cursing him and applying to him epithets too vile and opprobrious to repeat, and threatening to kick him out of the depot. Plaintiff, being an old man and having nothing with which to defend himself against the threatened assault, hurried out of the depot and did not go back, but sent a drayman in to get his package. He said that the incident completely unnerved him, and rendered him unfit to attend to his business the rest of the day; that it deeply wounded his feelings and caused him great humiliation.
The defendant moved for a directed verdict as to actual damages on the grounds: (1) That the action therefor was based upon the mere use of opprobrious words, which are not actionable in the absence of proof of physical injury; (2) that, as there was no proof of physical injury, damages for humiliation and mental distress are not recoverable. And, as to the claim for damages based upon a willful tort, defendant asked for a directed verdict on the ground that there was no proof of any intentional invasion of plaintiff's rights by defendant. The court granted the motion as to actual damages, but refused it as to punitive damages, and charged the jury that:
"Punitive damages cannot be allowed where there has been no actual damages, but may be allowed where the actual damages are merely nominal; and the law implies some actual damages from every conscious or willful or reckless invasion of another's rights; so that implied nominal damages would be sufficient to base a verdict for punitive damages, if otherwise a proper case has been made out by the testimony."
The defendant assigns error in refusing its motion for a directed verdict as to punitive damages, and in the instruction above quoted. Only for the purpose of sustaining the judgment, the plaintiff excepted to the direction of the verdict for defendant for actual damages.
It is not necessary to consider plaintiff's exceptions and decide whether, upon the case made, plaintiff was not entitled to recover actual as well as punitive damages because the court instructed the jury that nominal damages are presumed from an invasion of another's rights, and that such presumed damages would be sufficient to sustain a verdict for punitive damages; and the verdict for plaintiff shows that the jury followed that instruction. And although the direction of the verdict for defendant on the issue of actual damages and the instruction quoted may appear to have been inconsistent, the jury were not thereby misled to defendant's injury. If there was any error, it was favorable to d...
To continue reading
Request your trial