Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Fletcher

• Citation: 194 Ala. 257,69 So. 634
• Decision Date: 20 May 1915
• Docket Number: 815
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO. v. FLETCHER.

69 So. 634

194 Ala. 257

LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO. v. FLETCHER.

No. 815

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 20, 1915

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1915

Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Morgan County; Thomas W. Wert Judge.

Action by Eldred Fletcher against the Louisville & Nashville RailrOad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Eyster & Eyster, of New Decatur, for appellant.

E.W Godbey, of Decatur, for appellee.

THOMAS J.

The complaint as amended alleges that appellant was a common carrier, and that appellee was a passenger over appellant's railway line from Oxmoor to Decatur, and that appellee delivered to appellant, for carriage, in connection with his passage, as a passenger to Decatur, two trunks, the contents of which are specifically set out, and avers that after appellant took charge of the two trunks and contents, it so negligently handled, managed, and cared for the same that the trunks and contents were damaged, injured, spoiled, and lost by the appellant, its agents, or servants, or train, or all combined, and were never delivered to appellee, causing the material and proximate damage to appellee as specifically alleged. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was "greatly damaged and inconvenienced, worried, and annoyed" by reason of the nondelivery of plaintiff's baggage according to contract.

The defendant moved to strike that portion of the complaint claiming damages for inconvenience, worry, and annoyance on account of the nondelivery of the trunks and their contents, and for expense and loss of time in going from Decatur to Oxmoor to investigate the damage to the same. A defendant, however, may reserve the question by objection to evidence or by special charges. Bixby-Theisen Co. v. Evans, 174 Ala. 571, 57 So. 39; Southern Railway Co. v. Coleman, 153 Ala. 266, 44 So. 837; Woodstock Iron Works v. Stockdale, 143 Ala. 550, 39 So. 335, 5 Ann.Cas. 578; Vandiver v. Waller, 143 Ala. 411, 39 So. 136; 7 Mayf.Dig. 224.

We do not doubt that, in assessing damages for a trespass to property, mental suffering, established by the proof as the proximate and natural consequence of the trespass, and attended with circumstances of insult and contumely, is to be taken into account and compensated as a matter of right. In trespass, damages take a wide range. Mattingly et al. v. Houston, 167 Ala. 167, 174, 52 So. 78.

Where, as in the case before us, the wrong consists in the nondelivery of the baggage of a passenger, the result of mere negligence, the only damages that may be awarded are damages compensating the proximate resulting pecuniary loss--the loss of the baggage at the time of the nondelivery, or at any time subsequent thereto, with interest. Sharpe v. Barney, 114 Ala. 361, 21 So. 490. There was nothing in the nature of this nondelivery of the passenger's trunks which involved injury to the feelings, and nothing is shown by the evidence which could give him a right to damages for inconvenience, worry, or annoyance. Mattingly et al. v. Houston, supra; L. & N.R.R. Co. v. Hine, 121 Ala. 238, 25 So. 857; White v. Dresser, 135 Mass. 150, 46 Am.Rep. 454.

The defendant sought to raise the question of the right to damages for annoyance in charge 22, and for "inconvenience, worry, or annoyance" in charge 28. Each of these charges was refused by the trial court. The charge at defendant's request given, No. 25, "I charge you plaintiff is not entitled to recover for mental anguish in this case," was not the equivalent of the instruction requested and refused in charges numbered 22 and 28. There was error in the refusal of these charges.

The expense and loss of time incurred by plaintiff in making a trip to Oxmoor to see about the lost baggage, to...