Milhous v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 October 1906 |
| Citation | 55 S.E. 764,75 S.C. 351 |
| Parties | MILHOUS v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Barnwell County; Purdy Judge.
Action by J. H. E. Milhous against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff before a magistrate was affirmed in the circuit court, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Robert Aldrich, for appellant. G. M. Green, for respondent.
The plaintiff sued the defendant company before C. W. Moody, a magistrate for Barnwell county, to recover damages for delay in delivering certain baggage, consisting of four grips which defendant had engaged to transport for him, as passenger, from Barnwell, S. C., to Dunbarton, S. C. on the 13th day of September, 1905. The baggage went on the same train as plaintiff and by mistake was carried beyond the proper station, but was returned on the next train and delivered to plaintiff at Dunbarton, after a delay of 3 hours and 20 minutes. Plaintiff is a dentist, and the baggage contained a part of his dentist machine, called an "engine," but it was not claimed nor does it appear that the defendant company had any knowledge or notice of this. Plaintiff, as appears by his letter to defendant, dated September 15, 1905, and introduced in evidence by defendant made demand on defendant for damages to the amount of $20, claiming that his time on that trip was worth $6 per hour, and that on account of delay and lost time he did not finish the work of some school children who were going away to college, which work he consequently lost. In his complaint before the magistrate, plaintiff demanded $100 damages, alleging the loss of time before mentioned as the result of the gross carelessness, willfulness and wantonness of the defendant company in failing to deliver the baggage promptly. The defendant company made a general denial, but in court, before entering upon the trial, offered to allow judgment to be taken against defendant for $1 and costs, which offer was refused. On the trial, over defendant's objection to its relevancy, plaintiff was allowed to testify that the time he lost by the delay was worh $6 per hour, basing the value of his time by the work he did while at Dunbarton on that trip, and the loss of work by the delay. Defendant moved for a nonsuit on the ground that loss of profits in business, or special damages, could not be considered in this case. The magistrate gave judgment for $20, and defendant appealed to the circuit court, alleging error (1) in basing judgment upon what plaintiff could have earned had his baggage been put off with him; (2) that there was no evidence of willfulness; (3) that there was no evidence of such injury or loss as the law takes into consideration.
Judge Purdy made the following decree: "There is no basis for punitive damages in this case. Failure to put off the implements of the plaintiff was wholly an inadvertence, cured immediately on discovery, but occasioned a delay of 3 hours and 20 minutes. The plaintiff claims damages for loss of time at $6 per hour, and states that his time was worth that much on that occasion, and that the subjects or clients were present, and had to leave to go off to school, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to do the work. In his complaint he bases his damages on 'lost time,' and there was no motion to make definite and certain the statements or elements of damages beyond this. There was no objection to the testimony upon the ground that no special damages were alleged, but on other grounds. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial