Massey v. Hines
| Decision Date | 01 August 1921 |
| Citation | 108 S.E. 181,117 S.C. 1 |
| Parties | MASSEY v. HINES, DIRECTOR GENERAL AND AGENT OF RAILROADS. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
On Petition for Rehearing August 15, 1921.
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of York County; W. H Townsend, Judge.
Action by Jessie H. Massey against Walker D. Hines, Director General and Agent of Railroads. From judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Judgment, in so far as for actual damages affirmed, in so far as for punitive damages, reversed.
Glenn & Glenn, of Chester, and Thomas F. McDow, of York, for appellant.
Samuel E. McFadden, of Chester, and John R. Hart, of York, for respondent.
The sole question in this case is whether or not the Director General of Railroads while in federal control of a railroad is liable in punitive damages for the willful tort of his agents and servants.
The question is answered in the negative by the decisions of this court in Rowell v. Hines, 114 S.C. 339, 103 S.E. 545; Ginn v. Hines, 114 S.C. 236, 103 S.E. 548, and by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Missouri, etc., Railroad Co. v. Ault, decided June 1, 1921, 256 U.S. 554, 41 S.Ct. 593, 65 L.Ed. 1087, where it is declared:
"The purpose for which the government permitted itself to be sued was compensation, not punishment."
The judgment of this court is that so much of the judgment of the circuit court as is for $8,000 actual damages, be affirmed, and that so much of the judgment as is for $12,000 punitive damages be reversed.
On Petition for Rehearing.
The appellant herein has filed a petition for a rehearing of this appeal upon the ground that the appeal was only from such portion of the verdict as allowed punitive damages, and that the judgment of this court should have been a modification of the judgment to that extent, and not an order for a new trial nisi. The position of the appellant is sustained. Salley v. Railroad Co., 79 S.C. 388, 60 S.E. 938; Ellison v. Railroad Co., 94 S.C. 431, 77 S.E. 723, 78 S.E. 231; DeLeach v. Railroad Co., 106 S.C. 155, 90 S.E. 701; Calhoun v. Railroad Co., 106 S.E. 781. The agreed case shows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Currie v. Davis
...Ellison v. Railway Co., 94 S.C. 425, 433, 77 S.E. 723, 78 S.E. 231; Calhoun v. So. Ry. Co., 115 S.C. 489, 106 S.E. 780; Massey v. Hines, 117 S.C. 1, 108 S.E. 180; Hansen v. Boyd, 161 U.S. 397, 16 S.Ct. 571, 40 746. There can be no doubt that a remission in full by the appellee of such porti......
-
Key v. Charleston & W.C. Ry. Co.
...new trial should be had only upon the issue of punitive damages, based upon the allegation of willfulness. In the case of Massey v. Hines, 117 S.C. 1, 108 S.E. 181, the plaintiff had a verdict of $12,000, punitive and actual damages. The defendant, Director General of Railroads, appealed fr......
-
Dill v. Lumbermens Mutual Ins. Co.
... ... affirmance and the respondent, therefore, entitled to its ... costs. The earlier case of Massey v. Hines, 117 S.C ... 1, 108 S.E. 181, was cited. In that case an award of punitive ... damages of $12,000 was reversed and actual damages of ... ...
-
Fyfe v. Davis
...or punitive damages cannot be recovered against the director general. Payne v. Bartlett, 127 Miss. 189 (89 So. 912); Massey v. Hines, 117 S.C. 1 (108 S.E. 181); Payne v. Smitherman, 206 Ala. 591 (91 So. Davis v. Elzey, 126 Miss. 789 (88 So. 630). The force of these decisions is attempted to......